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

[niaz]

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



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

Thanks, but then you confirm my view that Punjabi is not an ethnicity??

All the explanation thus far state that if your family has lived in Punjab for a few generation, you are Punjabi, but then what is the time required and who determines the time?

I used to travel quite a lot from Sargodha to Faisalbad (then Lyallpur) during my early youth because my maternal uncles are from Faisalabad. There is a small market town called Lalian on the way. Many people I came across in Lalian were migrants from present day Haryana, except the language, I did not find much difference in their mannerism, food or dressing habits. I am pretty sure that after 50 years one would not be able to differentiate between them and the local people of Hang.

While Urdu speakers who settled in Sindh have remained culturally separate; majority of those who have settled in Punjab towns have lost their separate identity and now intermingled with the local population.
I therefore came to the conclusion that while, Awan, Syed, Cheema, Paracha, Kakezai etc. may refer to ethic differentiation, any one whose grandfather was born in Punjab ( 3rd generation) qualifies as a Punjabi. One of the reasons being that culture wise, people from Kashmir, Haryana and Seraiki speakers are quite close.


By the way, historically Multan was a more famous city that Lahore. Anyone who has read Kashf al Mahjoob by Hazrat Ali Hujwairi ( Data Gunj Baksh) would know that Data sahib while writing to Iraq mentions that he is settled in Lahore which is a town near Multan ( Lahore Multan kay mazafaat main hay).

 

[django]

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

In other words one can believe in a purple, ten headed baboon as a supreme diety and as long as that belief system exists in the territory that was under British occupation , that is Hinduism , thanks for the clarification,,,,no wonder the supreme court of India and Nehru were unable to come up with a suitable definition.Kudos

 

[UnitedPak]

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.
.
.
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!).

Kuru, now you are contradicting yourself. I clearly stated the Religious and Cultural identities are different.
It almost seems like your argument hinges on Pakistanis identifying themselves as "culturally" Muslim, which you then use to construct your Hindu cultural argument. I believe BOTH of those are flawed. BUT as a side note, a shared "religious" identity with "former Hindus" is extra absurd. Read it over one more time if you need to.
The equivalent would be for Pakistanis to claim shared heritage with Spaniards because Spain was once Muslim. I don't agree with any of this.

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.

Therein lies your other problem. Its one thing to use the name for the subcontinent (which nobody does anymore), but it's an entirely different thing to claim shared heritage because of said naming convention. Seems you are intentionally misleading yourself.

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?

My response above about the flawed idea of a religious cultural identity still withstanding...
When the British arrived in India they described there being millions of gods in India. The gods of one village were different from the next. As I understand, this is still the case with the major gods of Hinduism even today.
You could possibly class the ancient Pakistani religion as Hinduism, but I just don't understand how you can claim shared identity with people you know next to nothing about.

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.

You have the Indo-Aryan branch and the Dravidian branch.
I don't see anyone else creating a national identity from a language tree, or an imagined language tree like "Indic".
Central Asian culture, i.e Mughals defined everything from our language, food, architecture and even religion to some extent. Lets not play this silly game where you pretend all of this is indigenous.

 

[Kuru]

In other words one can believe in a purple, ten headed baboon as a supreme diety and as long as that belief system exists in the territory that was under British occupation , that is Hinduism , thanks for the clarification,,,,no wonder the supreme court of India and Nehru were unable to come up with a suitable definition.Kudos

I don't even know why are we discussing Hinduism in this thread. You asked me what is Hinduism and I just gave you a link. If you wish to discuss the logic behind such philosophies then please open another thread and tag me there. I'll be happy to answer.

Here I just want to add that ALL religions are illogical anyway. Be it a deity, flying horses or all those miracles. But Hinduism also has a philosophy based on Atheism. Here's a link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

Like I said, it's a set of philosophies. You need to have an open mind to understand it.

 

[Kuru]

I clearly stated the Religious and Cultural identities are different.

I thought you tried to justify Pakistanis claiming Arab ruling because of them being 'Muslim first.' You did say that. if it was just an explanation of their such behaviour (which you agree is flawed), then I accept I misunderstood. My bad. But I'm glad you find flaws in it. I appreciate your honesty .

It almost seems like your argument hinges on Pakistanis identifying themselves as "culturally" Muslim, which you then use to construct your Hindu cultural argument. I believe BOTH of those are flawed. BUT as a side note, a shared "religious" identity with "former Hindus" is extra absurd. Read it over one more time if you need to.
The equivalent would be for Pakistanis to claim shared heritage with Spaniards because Spain was once Muslim. I don't agree with any of this.

The Pakistanis claiming shared Heritage with Spaniards is ofcourse absurd as Pakistanis aren't Europeans. Similarly, they claiming Arab ruling as their own is also as much absurd because they aren't Arabs either. Now these 2 things can't be compared to my point of 'former Hindus' because all these Hindus (present and former) live within a same geography called the Indian subcontinent, or South Asia if you wanna be politically neutral. Spanish and French will still remain Europeans (white race?) even though they are different countries. If Spanish people suddenly starts calling themselves as Koreans, then that's when we need to flag it as 'identity crisis.'

Therein lies your other problem. Its one thing to use the name for the subcontinent (which nobody does anymore), but it's an entirely different thing to claim shared heritage because of said naming convention. Seems you are intentionally misleading yourself.

It's not about the naming convention as you wanna call it, Sir. It was only to show that an Indian is usually identified as someone from the Indian subcontinent. Not because it's named as such; but because it's so named for the people who constitute it. No one would name Indian subcontinent as Antarctica or America because it isn't simply true. Of course Pakistanis will disagree as somehow this goes against their usual belief that people of subcontinent are considered different world over. That Oxford Dictionary I gave you was just to show that the world doesn't think that way.

My response above about the flawed idea of a religious cultural identity still withstanding...
When the British arrived in India they described there being millions of gods in India. The gods of one village were different from the next. As I understand, this is still the case with the major gods of Hinduism even today.
You could possibly class the ancient Pakistani religion as Hinduism, but I just don't understand how you can claim shared identity with people you know next to nothing about

No sir, I didn't wanna claim any shared Heritage here. I gave this example to compare it with those Pakistanis who identify themselves with Arabs because of they being 'Muslims First.' I only stated the fact that the people residing in the area which is now Pakistan used to be Hindus once and I'm glad that you agree to it. This is where I thought that I should search the definition of an Indian and I came across that Oxford Dictionary website which further proves my point.

You have the Indo-Aryan branch and the Dravidian branch.
I don't see anyone else creating a national identity from a language tree, or an imagined language tree like "Indic".
Central Asian culture, i.e Mughals defined everything from our language, food, architecture and even religion to some extent. Lets not play this silly game where you pretend all of this is indigenous.

I'm sorry if you feel that but I wasn't playing any games. You claimed that the local culture isn't dominant as compared to the Central Asian culture. I said that the languages (Indo-Aryan or Dravidian) are still local to make a point of local culture being dominant. Punjabi is still the largest spoken language in Pakistan and it didn't come from Central Asia. Same about Sindhi language. In India, almost ALL languages are local. If this doesn't show the local culture being dominant then I don't know what will.

While I accept that there have been cultural exchanges but calling them dominant and ignoring the local culture is wrong. At least I see it that way and thats why I used the term Stockholm syndrome in one of my replies above. Of course, you're free to disagree.

 

[Manidabest]

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.


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

well may be they are lying or may be they are telling the truth it depends on extensive research that needed to be conducted by officials

Thanks, but then you confirm my view that Punjabi is not an ethnicity??

All the explanation thus far state that if your family has lived in Punjab for a few generation, you are Punjabi, but then what is the time required and who determines the time?

I used to travel quite a lot from Sargodha to Faisalbad (then Lyallpur) during my early youth because my maternal uncles are from Faisalabad. There is a small market town called Lalian on the way. Many people I came across in Lalian were migrants from present day Haryana, except the language, I did not find much difference in their mannerism, food or dressing habits. I am pretty sure that after 50 years one would not be able to differentiate between them and the local people of Hang.

While Urdu speakers who settled in Sindh have remained culturally separate; majority of those who have settled in Punjab towns have lost their separate identity and now intermingled with the local population.
I therefore came to the conclusion that while, Awan, Syed, Cheema, Paracha, Kakezai etc. may refer to ethic differentiation, any one whose grandfather was born in Punjab ( 3rd generation) qualifies as a Punjabi. One of the reasons being that culture wise, people from Kashmir, Haryana and Seraiki speakers are quite close.


By the way, historically Multan was a more famous city that Lahore. Anyone who has read Kashf al Mahjoob by Hazrat Ali Hujwairi ( Data Gunj Baksh) would know that Data sahib while writing to Iraq mentions that he is settled in Lahore which is a town near Multan ( Lahore Multan kay mazafaat main hay).

Yes you are right that there is nothing like local punjabis or pure punjabi tribes. it is a combination of different nations. people from indian punjab and haryana who migrated to Pakistani Punjab are not considered muhajirs because its like shifting homes unlike those who are urdu speakers who have to leave their entire culture which they did and settled in various parts of Pakistan. I guess once a person loses his true identity and merge into local punjabis cultural and linguistic wise then he is called a Punjabi it doesnt matter how long it takes. forexample Niazis have strong presence in punjab and many members are well mixed up with lPunjabis yet they are considered a Pathan tribe who migrated from Afghanistan and on other hand you have people like Rahat Fateh Ali khan and late Rangeela ( Actor) who migrated from afghanistan too but they are considered Punjabis more than Niazis because they have mixed up more with the local culture of that particular area.

this is my view pls correct me if i am wrong thanx.

 

[Royal Rajput]

Sir Punjab Has Always Been A Very Fertile and Economically Attractive Area.That Is Why It Has Always Been Invaded By People From Barren Area Tough For Human Settlement.The Invaders Eventually Settled and Became Farmers Themselves Only To Be Invaded By The Next Lot.

One Should Read The Writings Of Babur.He Mentions Afghan Arab and Turk Settlements When He Crossed This Area

Namaskar,

Punjab was a Dust bowl before British Came and fertilized whole Region by their Canal System. the Region was thinly Populated starting from Ancient times to Arrival of British Colonial Power in Early Modern Period.

Same can be said for North west Rajasthan/MAruPradesh.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Namaskar,

Punjab was a Dust bowl before British Came and fertilized whole Region by their Canal System. the Region was thinly Populated starting from Ancient times to Arrival of British Colonial Power in Early Modern Period.

Same can be said for North west Rajasthan/MAruPradesh.

Actually you're very wrong, it has always been fertile and at a time had massive forests, elephants, rhinos, lions, tigers and etc... It was considered the richest province of many empires in history including the Achaemenid Empire.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

"Indic".

Magic word "Abracadebra"? No. Magic word "Indic". Yes. Use it to claim anything. just say "Indic".

 

[UnitedPak]

Magic word "Abracadebra"? No. Magic word "Indic". Yes. Use it to claim anything. just say "Indic".

It's about to be as dated as the term "Oriental" to describe anyone looking east Asian.

 

[Jackdaws]

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.

That is a sweeping statement and patently untrue. Maulana Azad, Ashafullah Khan, Shahnawaz Khan, not to mention Bharat Ratna awardee Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan fought gallantly for India's freedom. India is for everyone and every community contributed to its freedom movement.

 

[Kuru]

That is a sweeping statement and patently untrue. Maulana Azad, Ashafullah Khan, Shahnawaz Khan, not to mention Bharat Ratna awardee Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan fought gallantly for India's freedom. India is for everyone and every community contributed to its freedom movement.

I'm sorry, I should've mentioned "not all Muslims". I will edit the post, thanks for correcting me. Good day

Edit:
Hey, it seems it doesn't let me edit it. May be because it's more than 24 hours? I don't know. But yes, that post is incorrect as it generalizes all Indian Muslims. I take that back.

 

[Jackdaws]

I'm sorry, I should've mentioned "not all Muslims". I will edit the post, thanks for correcting me. Good day

Edit:
Hey, it seems it doesn't let me edit it. May be because it's more than 24 hours? I don't know. But yes, that post is incorrect as it generalizes all Indian Muslims. I take that back.

Great. It is a complicated history. Religion was infused in the freedom movement by Gandhi. But that is what worked with the masses and brought the freedom movement out of the big cities. If I remember correctly, this is what actually infuriated Jinnah - bringing religion into the freedom movement. A bunch of activists initially wanted to get freedom through constitutional means and not through concepts like Satyagraha and Non-Cooperation. They were angling for dominion status like Canada and Australia.

 

[Reichsmarschall]

India is for everyone

India is not for everyone

India is for everyone

India is not for everyone

 

[Jackdaws]

India is not for everyone


India is not for everyone

It is. It has been for centuries.