The transformation of Punjabi identity over the centuries Haroon KhalidUpdated November 29, 2017 304

[niaz]

I have question? Are you a Punjabi if your mother tongue is Punjabi or if your ancestors have originated in what was the greater Punjab?

My reason being that when I was born (1943), even Haryana was part of Punjab. Hence one referred to residents of Ambala, Karnal, Rothak, and Hissar etc. also Punjabi unitl 1947. In present day Pakistan, many residents of Attock speak Hindko and of Dera Ghazi Khan speak Baluchi but both the cities are in Punjab.

My point being that in my view Punjabi is not an ethnicity but refers to the place of residence. For example a large percentage of Lahoris are of Kashmiri origin but I would call them Punjabis. On the other hand many Seraiki speakers donot consider themselves Punjabi but at Seraiki.

 

[Kuru]

However you want to define "Hindu religion", it certainly was not "a culture". The cultures of the subcontinent can probably best be described on a linguistic basis, not religious, and especially not a loosely defined religion like Hinduism. Even the various Muslim majority regions don't have the same culture.
But if any culture came close to dominate all of the subcontinent, it would be the Central Asian/Turkic/Mughal culture.

Also, its nothing like you converting to Islam tomorrow. Pakistani regions have been muslim majority for at least 1000 years.

Yes, Hindus have different cultures from region to region, just like (as you pointed out) Muslims have different cultures from region to region. You claim that Muslims can share the identity with other Muslims (including their ruling in Spain!) yet some people believe that the Hindus can't share such things with former Hindus even within the Indian subcontinent! Kinda confusing, isn't it?

The central Asian culture hasn't dominated the Indian subcontinent apart from religion in some part of it (which includes present day Pakistan). To this day, entire Indian subcontinent still speak the local languages which came out of Ancient Sanskrit. The fact that they still speak these Indic languages is a living example of local culture being dominant. How can we avoid that? The 'culture' by far remained the same. Things which changed were the way people worship.

No matter how many years ago I changed the way I worship (tomorrow or a thousand years ago), this doesn't make me a foreigner to this land. That doesn't change my race, my history or my identity. If some people think that changing the way of worship makes you different from your own neighbours then these are the very people suffering from identity crisis.

You do realise when some Pakistanis talk about ruling India for 1000 years, they are seeing themselves as "Muslim first". This has nothing to do with being invaders or not local. They identify as Muslims and by the same logic, they could talk about ruling Spain too. Its not an ethnocentric claim.

I'm sorry but that's even worst. Considering the fact that they themselves were ruled by those Invaders, now that they have converted to the invaders' religion, they are claiming that ruling (of which they were the subjects) as their own? It's kinda laughable really. This is a classic example of Stockholm syndrome. It's like a converted Christian from Dhaka claiming that he ruled the world as he/she shares the same religion with those British Rulers. Do you see how illogical is that!

You could call yourself whatever you want, follow any religion you want but how can a subject become a ruler by mere converting to the Rulers' religion! This is nothing but the identity crisis, sir.

Peace.

Son you should fight this battle with Benglis on BD forum, I don't see many Indians making this point to them despite the fact that Indians in general are exact same as Bengalis apart form few.

Mommy, you don't see me doing it in BD forum because they already know that they aren't invaders.

Peace

 

[Joe Shearer]

No one consider urdu speakers punjabi here. Neither anyone ask about your clan or tribe. Never in my life seen anyone asking another person about his tribe, clan, caste etc after meeting them. Maybe the fact that its considered rude and uncivilised. I didn't confuse anyone, you yourself have said many times your mother is from India UP originally and father from punjab but living in Karachi since birth.

Linguistic identity >>> any other identity unless one have extreme form of inferiority complex.



Son you should fight this battle with Benglis on BD forum, I don't see many Indians making this point to them despite the fact that Indians in general are exact same as Bengalis apart form few.

Little boy, there are Bengalis, not Benglis, a term that refers to all that speak that language, and there are Bangladeshis, who belong to the nation-state of Bangladesh. I don't understand that weird and totally unfounded statement about Indians in general being the exact same as Bengalis, except as a direct outcome of a neglected education. A Tamilian, for instance, has neither language, nor food, nor dress, nor sect of Hindu belief, nor history, nor dance, nor song - nothing, in fact, in common with a Bengali.

A piece of advice, free, and therefore easily disposable in the nearest waste-paper basket: if you have nothing to say, do feel free to say it elsewhere. Perhaps on Bharat Rakshak? It will reinforce their romantic image of a Pakistani being solid muscle from the neck upwards.

 

[Kabira]

Little boy, there are Bengalis, not Benglis, a term that refers to all that speak that language, and there are Bangladeshis, who belong to the nation-state of Bangladesh. I don't understand that weird and totally unfounded statement about Indians in general being the exact same as Bengalis, except as a direct outcome of a neglected education. A Tamilian, for instance, has neither language, nor food, nor dress, nor sect of Hindu belief, nor history, nor dance, nor song - nothing, in fact, in common with a Bengali.

A piece of advice, free, and therefore easily disposable in the nearest waste-paper basket: if you have nothing to say, do feel free to say it elsewhere. Perhaps on Bharat Rakshak? It will reinforce their romantic image of a Pakistani being solid muscle from the neck upwards.

Sri Lankans, Biharis, Gujaratis and Bengalis are pretty much same people. But we don't see @Kuru going there to troll despite the fact that Bengalis and Gujarati people are same and have more in common then they have with Pakistanis.

I have question? Are you a Punjabi if your mother tongue is Punjabi or if your ancestors have originated in what was the greater Punjab?

My reason being that when I was born (1943), even Haryana was part of Punjab. Hence one referred to residents of Ambala, Karnal, Rothak, and Hissar etc. also Punjabi unitl 1947. In present day Pakistan, many residents of Attock speak Hindko and of Dera Ghazi Khan speak Baluchi but both the cities are in Punjab.

My point being that in my view Punjabi is not an ethnicity but refers to the place of residence. For example a large percentage of Lahoris are of Kashmiri origin but I would call them Punjabis. On the other hand many Seraiki speakers donot consider themselves Punjabi but at Seraiki.

If you are resident of punjab for few centuries and speak native tongue then you are punjabi, seraiki etc. Haryanvis don't speak greater punjab language unlike hindkos and seraikis.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sri Lankans, Biharis, Gujaratis and Bengalis are pretty much same people. But we don't see @Kuru going there to troll despite the fact that Bengalis and Gujarati people are same and have more in common then they have with Pakistanis.

What amazing rubbish! On what basis do you say this? Or do we suspend every other method of knowing and just accept your word for it?

If you are resident of punjab for few centuries and speak native tongue then you are punjabi, seraiki etc. Haryanvis don't speak greater punjab language unlike hindkos and seraikis.

 

[Sugarcane]

Jinnah himself used the term 'Indian Muslims' while referring to the Muslims living in the Indian subcontinent. This is before 1947 I'm talking about. So again, you're wrong, I'm sorry.

"Indian Muslims" cake was flopped in Punjab & Sindh as late as 1942. The very fact which is not taught in Pakistan for certain reasons and Indians conveniently ignore as well because it doesn't go well with one India narrative.

 

[UnitedPak]

Yes, Hindus have different cultures from region to region, just like (as you pointed out) Muslims have different cultures from region to region. You claim that Muslims can share the identity with other Muslims (including their ruling in Spain!) yet some people believe that the Hindus can't share such things with former Hindus even within the Indian subcontinent! Kinda confusing, isn't it?

I didn't say that I necessarily agreed with a "common Muslim culture". Religious identity cannot be compared to a cultural identity, but in the case of Hinduism its even more vague. You literally have no idea which gods pre-Islamic Pakistanis worshipped or what their culture was like. So your claims on the shared heritage is not backed up by much, except assumptions.

The central Asian culture hasn't dominated the Indian subcontinent apart from religion in some part of it (which includes present day Pakistan). To this day, entire Indian subcontinent still speak the local languages which came out of Ancient Sanskrit. The fact that they still speak these Indic languages is a living example of local culture being dominant. How can we avoid that? The 'culture' by far remained the same. Things which changed were the way people worship.

Once again, "Indic" is an arbitrary definition. Otherwise there would be no North/South Indian divide in culture, language and even religion. I am not going to educate you about the influence of Central Asia and Persia as you are clearly not interested in knowing.

No matter how many years ago I changed the way I worship (tomorrow or a thousand years ago), this doesn't make me a foreigner to this land. That doesn't change my race, my history or my identity. If some people think that changing the way of worship makes you different from your own neighbours then these are the very people suffering from identity crisis.

But unless you are of Punjabi/Sindhi/Pashtun/Kashmiri stock, then you are a foreigner to the Indus region. Nothing to do with religion. And if you can trace your origins to the Indus region, then it doesnt allow you to claim the same for the rest of your country. Just yourself.

 

[django]

Yes, Hindus have different cultures from region to region, just like (as you pointed out) Muslims have different cultures from region to region. You claim that Muslims can share the identity with other Muslims (including their ruling in Spain!) yet some people believe that the Hindus can't share such things with former Hindus even within the Indian subcontinent! Kinda confusing, isn't it?

The central Asian culture hasn't dominated the Indian subcontinent apart from religion in some part of it (which includes present day Pakistan). To this day, entire Indian subcontinent still speak the local languages which came out of Ancient Sanskrit. The fact that they still speak these Indic languages is a living example of local culture being dominant. How can we avoid that? The 'culture' by far remained the same. Things which changed were the way people worship.

No matter how many years ago I changed the way I worship (tomorrow or a thousand years ago), this doesn't make me a foreigner to this land. That doesn't change my race, my history or my identity. If some people think that changing the way of worship makes you different from your own neighbours then these are the very people suffering from identity crisis.



I'm sorry but that's even worst. Considering the fact that they themselves were ruled by those Invaders, now that they have converted to the invaders' religion, they are claiming that ruling (of which they were the subjects) as their own? It's kinda laughable really. This is a classic example of Stockholm syndrome. It's like a converted Christian from Dhaka claiming that he ruled the world as he/she shares the same religion with those British Rulers. Do you see how illogical is that!

You could call yourself whatever you want, follow any religion you want but how can a subject become a ruler by mere converting to the Rulers' religion! This is nothing but the identity crisis, sir.

Peace.


Mommy, you don't see me doing it in BD forum because they already know that they aren't invaders.

Peace

My dear chap could you define Hindu religion or the recently concocted term Sanatan Dharam???

 

[lastofthepatriots]

This whole Punjabi identity thing is stupid because Punjab is pretty much Pakistan. Sikhs dont even understand some of the words we use today, only a hand full of older generation do.

 

[Manidabest]

I found this part interesting. Except Indian Muslims, everyone during independence struggle was on the same page that religion was secondary. The real target was to free their motherland.

Unfortunately, then Indian Muslims thought that religion was much more important than the country so they decided to fight their very neighbours whom they had grown up with.

In the end, Britishers succeeded in their "divide and rule" policy. Indian Muslims became victims of this policy and started demanding a different country based on religion. Not to mention that leaders of newly found Pakistan then declared that Pakistan is for everyone irrespective of religion! (then why did they make it based on religion in the first place!)

This new country then started justifying its own existence by calling itself different than the Hindu India. For this new country, Pakistan's defination was simply "NOT INDIA." This new defination then finally resulted into the loss of their local Punjabi identity.

The new generation of Pakistan wants nothing to do with their roots. They want everything to do with the Invaders so that they can claim that "they ruled India for 1000 years". However, quite surprisingly, (in the same breath) they want to claim the IVC and prove themselves the locals.

This kind of identity crisis also resulted into the loss of Punjabi identity if there's such a thing.

Majority of Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun, Baloch, Bengali and Kashmiri muslims didnt want to stay under the thumb of hindu majority country so we seperated our areas from india and called ourselves Pakistanis

I have question? Are you a Punjabi if your mother tongue is Punjabi or if your ancestors have originated in what was the greater Punjab?



My point being that in my view Punjabi is not an ethnicity but refers to the place of residence. For example a large percentage of Lahoris are of Kashmiri origin but I would call them Punjabis. On the other hand many Seraiki speakers donot consider themselves Punjabi but at Seraiki.

Punjabi is a language and Punjab is a piece of land and people living in it are from different races. Kashmiris who are living in Punjab are kashmiris but because they migrated in early 20th century and in mid of 1947 after independence they moved to lahore in bulk and in surrounding cities too. and also since these sharifs have been elected form Lahore again and again people consider lahore as a kashmiri city but its a lie and bullshit.

if you ask most of siraiki people about their tribe majority of them will come out as Pushtuns and Balochs who have been living in Punjab and enslaved local population after invading their lands successively. Siraiki is a dialect of Punjabi just like majha potohari etc

 

[Kuru]

I didn't say that I necessarily agreed with a "common Muslim culture".

That's why I didn't say YOU did, I specifically used the term "some people." These some people are suffering from identity crisis. Thanks for your agreement BTW. At least this one thing we did agree.

Religious identity cannot be compared to a cultural identity, but in the case of Hinduism its even more vague. You literally have no idea which gods pre-Islamic Pakistanis worshipped or what their culture was like. So your claims on the shared heritage is not backed up by much, except assumptions.

Please tell me which gods people worshiped before Islam was introduced to the region which is now Pakistan. I wanna say they were either Hindus or Buddhists. I could be wrong about that but if it isn't true, then who were they?

Once again, "Indic" is an arbitrary definition. Otherwise there would be no North/South Indian divide in culture, language and even religion.

Indic language isn't one single language, Sir. There are Indic languages. All languages in Indian subcontinent are Indic languages. Punjabi and Sindhi are also Indic languages. I just wanted to point out that the local culture has always been dominant because you claimed that Central Asian culture has been a dominant one. It was a reply to your claim and nothing else.

But unless you are of Punjabi/Sindhi/Pashtun/Kashmiri stock, then you are a foreigner to the Indus region. Nothing to do with religion. And if you can trace your origins to the Indus region, then it doesnt allow you to claim the same for the rest of your country. Just yourself.

Similarly, unless you're of Arabian stock, you're a foreigner to Arabia. So you can't claim their ruling (that too in Spain) even after terming it as a "shared religious identity." If identity has nothing to do with religion, so why not apply that same logic here?

This is what I said in my previous reply. I find a contradiction in your argument. You're saying two different things:

1) It's OKAY for some Pakistanis to claim "they ruled India 1000 years" because they consider themselves as Muslims first (Religious identity applies here).
Vs
2) It's NOT okay for Hindus to claim shared identity with former Hindus even within the Indian subcontinent (Religious identity CANT apply here because they are Punjabis, Tamils, Gujaratis and Bengalis and so on!).

So you either talk about 1 or you talk about 2. You can't talk about both at the same time. I find it unfortunate that you have different definations for Hindus and Muslims about this whole 'identity thing.'

Just saying, I googled "Indian" and I found something interesting. The defination of Indian in the Oxford Dictionary is:

ADJECTIVE

Relating to India or to the subcontinent comprising India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Link: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/indian

BTW, I never said I'm from IVC (though Gujarat was a part of it), I only said that Pakistanis are locals. In fact, we both are saying the same thing, except that I'm not making contradictory statements.

Majority of Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun, Baloch, Bengali and Kashmiri muslims didnt want to stay under the thumb of hindu majority country so we seperated our areas from india and called ourselves Pakistanis

Yes that's a fact. This is what had happened. There's no identity crisis in this statement.

The crisis started when some Pakistanis started believing that they're invaders and aren't locals. Of course not ALL Pakistanis believe it, but there are few who do and they are the ones suffering from this identity crisis.

 

[Manidabest]

That's why I didn't say YOU did, I specifically used the term "some people." These some people are suffering from identity crisis. Thanks for your agreement BTW. At least this one thing we did agree.


Please tell me which gods people worshiped before Islam was introduced to the region which is now Pakistan. I wanna say they were either Hindus or Buddhists. I could be wrong about that but if it isn't true, then who were they?


Indic language isn't one single language, Sir. There are Indic languages. All languages in Indian subcontinent are Indic languages. Punjabi and Sindhi are also Indic languages. I just wanted to point out that the local culture has always been dominant because you claimed that Central Asian culture has been a dominant one. It was a reply to your claim and nothing else.


Similarly, unless you're of Arabian stock, you're a foreigner to Arabia. So you can't claim their ruling (that too in Spain) even after terming it as a "shared religious identity." If identity has nothing to do with religion, so why not apply that same logic here?

This is what I said in my previous reply. I find a contradiction in your argument. You're saying two different things:

1) It's OKAY for some Pakistanis to claim "they ruled India 1000 years" because they consider themselves as Muslims first (Religious identity applies here).
Vs
2) It's NOT okay for Hindus to claim shared identity with former Hindus even within the Indian subcontinent (Religious identity CANT apply here because they are Punjabis, Tamils, Gujaratis and Bengalis and so on!).

So you either talk about 1 or you talk about 2. You can't talk about both at the same time. I find it unfortunate that you have different definations for Hindus and Muslims about this whole 'identity thing.'

Just saying, I googled "Indian" and I found something interesting. The defination of Indian in the Oxford Dictionary is:

ADJECTIVE

Relating to India or to the subcontinent comprising India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Link: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/indian

BTW, I never said I'm from IVC (though Gujarat was a part of it), I only said that Pakistanis are locals. In fact, we both are saying the same thing, except that I'm not making contradictory statements.


Yes that's a fact. This is what had happened. There's no identity crisis in this statement.

The crisis started when some Pakistanis started believing that they're invaders and aren't locals. Of course not ALL Pakistanis believe it, but there are few who do and they are the ones suffering from this identity crisis.

there is no identity crisis in Pakistanis.... Pakistani Punjab is full of ethnics who are not south asians for example turkish tribes khiljis, baigs, pashas, chugtais, taimooris ( original royal mughal family members), barlas then comes Pashtuns who are of Iranians origin namely Niazis, tareens, yousafzais, Kasuris, khakwanis, kakazais, gardezis, chach pathans, & generally punjabi pathans then comes balochs of punjab, namely mazaris, legharis, lasharis, khosas and Punjabis balochs, then comes kashmiris of Kashmirs namely butts ( Bhatts for hindus), dar, wayne, lone, and Kashmiris in general and there r many tribes which are residing and or interleaping the provinces and in many cases they are living india also like jatts, rajputs, gujjars, kambohs etc, and 5 tribes that claim their ancestory from arabs are Abbasis, Qureshis, Arains, Awans, and theem( mostly residing in south punjab)

 

[Kuru]

there is no identity crisis in Pakistanis.... Pakistani Punjab is full of ethnics who are not south asians for example turkish tribes khiljis, baigs, pashas, chugtais, taimooris ( original royal mughal family members), barlas then comes Pashtuns who are of Iranians origin namely Niazis, tareens, yousafzais, Kasuris, khakwanis, kakazais, gardezis, chach pathans, & generally punjabi pathans then comes balochs of punjab, namely mazaris, legharis, lasharis, khosas and Punjabis balochs, then comes kashmiris of Kashmirs namely butts ( Bhatts for hindus), dar, wayne, lone, and Kashmiris in general and there r many tribes which are residing and or interleaping the provinces and in many cases they are living india also like jatts, rajputs, gujjars, kambohs etc, and 5 tribes that claim their ancestory from arabs are Abbasis, Qureshis, Arains, Awans, and theem( mostly residing in south punjab)

If I may ask, what percentage of Pakistanis do you think are outsiders (like those Arabian 5 tribes you mentioned) ?

"Indian Muslims" cake was flopped in Punjab & Sindh as late as 1942. The very fact which is not taught in Pakistan for certain reasons and Indians conveniently ignore as well because it doesn't go well with one India narrative.

I only replied to someone who claimed that there was noone who used the term Indian Muslim. BTW, what exactly Indians ignore please? Could you please elaborate, thanks in advance.

 

[Manidabest]

If I may ask, what percentage of Pakistanis do you think are outsiders (like those Arabian 5 tribes you mentioned) ?


I only replied to someone who claimed that there was noone who used the term Indian Muslim. BTW, what exactly Indians ignore please? Could you please elaborate, thanks in advance.

well i dot know i didnt conduct the census but i am sure they r alot but again those 5 tribes do claim arab ancestry but they just claim it has never been established that they have arab ancestry

 

[Kuru]

well i dot know i didnt conduct the census but i am sure they r alot but again those 5 tribes do claim arab ancestry but they just claim it has never been established that they have arab ancestry

That's the point. Nothing has ever been established. It's a high possibility that these people (who claim Arabic ancestry) are simply lying because they are ashamed of their local roots and identity. Yes, that's a possibility. And these are the same people who then claim that they're from IVC! Now do you see the confusion in them?

Anyway, I know you haven't conducted any census but it was just a general question. Thanks for replying.

My dear chap could you define Hindu religion or the recently concocted term Sanatan Dharam???

Sanatan Dharma is mentioned in Bhagwata Purana so it isn't new. Hinduism is a collection of philosophies of various Indian cultures and traditions. It's often called the oldest religion in the world. If you're interested to know more about it, here's a link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

You're welcome