A Forgotten Hero Named Jassa

Recognizing and honoring heroes is an essential
component of the national identity. The list of our
modern heroes includes Jinnah, Iqbal, Dr. Salam, Abdus
Sattar Edhi, Asma Jahangir and Noor Jahan. As we go
back in time, more heroes like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan are
recognized. Going further back in history, for example
in the case of Punjab, one finds great Sufis, Sikh
Gurus and heroes like Dulla Bhatti who fought for
peasant rights against Akbar, the mighty Mughal ruler.
The heroes are remembered in epics, in folklore, by
making monuments in their memory and naming places
after them. In the case of Pakistan, not only do we
not recognize them by naming streets, parks or cities
after them; some are altogether forgotten. They are
only known to few and their names are buried only in
the history books. There are no monuments, no towns,
no cites named after King Ashoka, Raja Porous, Raja
Jaipaul or Maharaja Ranjit Singh yet there are a
number of Sikanderabad and Sikanderpur in Pakistan,
honoring Alexander the Great.

A large number of Chowk followers have expressed their
views about the level of admiration bestowed upon
so-called Islamic rulers (Turkish and Afghan) in
India, relationship between native converts and
invading Muslims and overly ambitious attempts to
accept some of them as heroes. This is the story of a
forgotten hero who fought all his life against the
Turkish/ Afghan rulers and in all likelihood was a
Muslim of sub-continent origin. Most people might have
never heard of his name because of no folklore, no
epic, no mention in the textbooks and no street/ town/
city is named after him. He is considered one of the
leading gorilla leader of the fifteenth century who
fought for and along with his people, perfected the
art of war in that terrain and gave Turkish ruling
elite a taste of their own medicine. His name was
Jasrat alias Jassa.


The invasion of Timur exposed the hollowness of Delhi
Sultanate in north India. A large number of leaders of
native rose up and some even supported Timur out of
disgust for Sultanate. The chief of Khokhar (Gakkhars
according to some historians) tribe named Shaikha was
one of them. After the fall of Delhi at the hands of
Timur, Shaikha defected and captured Lahore. Timur
recaptured Lahore on his way back from Delhi, got
Shaikha beheaded on March 5, 1399 and took his son
Jasrat to Samarkand as a captive. After the death of
Timur, Jasrat escaped from his prison, returned home,
assumed the leadership of his tribe and set himself up
at Sialkot. This was the beginning of a remarkable
career, lasting almost 40 years, which began during
Mahmud Tughlaq reign but most of it occurred during
the reign of Syeds (Sadat) Sultanate.

His first act was to side with Shahi Khan against Ali
Shah in the civil war in Kashmir. The backing of
victorious Shahi Khan made Jasrat powerful and well
equipped to conceive of conquering Delhi. He was
joined by another great rebel, Tughan Rai, who had
just lost a rebellion against Syed Khizar Khan
(Founder of Syeds Sultanate). Together they swooped
across the rivers Ravi, Sutlej and Beas and defeated
the governor of Ludhiana, Rai Kamal-ud-din Firoz at
Talwandi. Encouraged by the victory, he captured areas
as far as Ropar and laid siege to Jullundhar. The new
Sultan, Syed Mubarak Shah moved against him in October
1421, retaking most of the area from Jasrat but failed
to capture him.

In the next act of his career, he assaulted Lahore in
May 1422 with a large force which apparently he had no
difficulty in collecting from his hideout in the hills
surrounding Jammu (an indication of widespread
discontent and frustration with the rulers). He tried
twice but each time was defeated by Lahore governor,
Mahmud Hassan, with help from Raja Bhim of Jammu.

In April 1423, Jasrat emerged from his abode, attacked
Raja Bhim of Jammu (a supporter of Sultanate) and
killed him. Not only did he remove a thorn from his
side, but also took possession of large reserves of
arms and treasure, increasing his strength. With a
force of 10,000-12,000 strong, he sacked Lahore and
Dipalpur. When governor of Punjab, Malik Sikander
Tuhfa encountered him with a much larger force, Jasrat
promptly withdrew from the contest.
In 1427, he saw a window of opportunity when royal
armies were busy in quelling the uprising in Mewat and
Bayana. He appeared from his hideout and laid siege to
Kalanaur. The Sultan deputed a large army against him
but just before its arrival, Jasrat retreated to his
abode.

In 1430, a slave of Syeds, Faulad Turkbaccha, revolted
against Syeds, allured ruler of Kabul, Shaikh Ali, for
help. The Khokhars, under the leadership of a minor
leader Ain-ud-Din joined Shaikh Ali during his attacks
on Punjab, Malik Sikander Tuhfa and Syeds Sultanate.
Taking advanatage of the weakened Sultanate position,
Jasrat reemerged from the hills, crossed rivers
Chenab, Ravi and Beas, defeating Malik Sikander Tuhfa
at Jullundhar in 1431. He arrested Malik Tuhfa and
recaptured Lahore. As usual, when Sultan marched from
Delhi with a large force, Jasrat had no option but to
withdraw.

As soon as, Sultan withdrew and moved his armies to
Gwalior and Bayana to quell another rebellion, Jasrat
captured Lahore for the third time in 1432, from
remaining Sultanate armies. And once again he had to
retreat with the arrival of fresh Sultnate armies.
In 1433, Sultan Syed Mubarak Shah replaced Nusrat Khan
with Allahabad Kaka Lodhi as the governor of this
region. Jasrat, immediately took the advantage of
changeover, marched to Bajwara and defeated the new
governor. Sultan Syed Mubarak Shah was assassinated in
1434.

The rise of Bahlol Lodhi that ultimately led to the
changeover of Sultanate from Syeds to Lodhis also
marks an end of a remarkable career of Jasrat. He was
getting old and saw no chance of fulfilling his dream
of eliminating the yoke of Turkish/ Afghan rule over
sub-continent. As a last resort, he made a pact with
Bahlol Lodhi promising not to interfere with Bahlol's
design to capture the throne in return for Bahlol not
attacking Jasrat's people and hometown on both sides
of lower river Jhelum. Jasrat died in 1442.

"In spite of well over three centuries of almost
unbroken rule, the famished Indian peasant wrote lungi
and ate khichri and frequently shifted his hamlet and
village to avoid the wrath of nature and the tyranny
of the state. He (the people) lost all sense of
pleasure, his genius was stunted, his mind was subdued
and his heart became rude" noted Babur, on Indian
affairs from the epitaph of the Delhi Sultanates, in
Babur Namah. What he and his descendants did to Indian
peasants is another story, a story of almost equal
disappointments.

Was Jasrat a hero, a rebel or both? Do we really need
a historical hero of native origin for identity in an
atmosphere that accepts past heroes only of non-native
origins? What is the problem to which Jasrat as a hero
is the solution? It is for the sake of integral
identity; an identity with a lion share of peoples'
heritage. A thorough brainwashing with the help of
textbooks, media, teaching and believing only from
victors' standpoint has taken place. Additionally,
removing all references of masses resistance and a
strategy of silence about the stories of leaders who
stood up for the rights of their people has resulted
in recognition of rulers like Mahmud Ghaznavi, Ahmad
Shah Abdali and Aurangzeb as heroes. Their imposition
as our heroes is unfair to our traditions and
heritage.

Here was a man who symbolized the people's struggle
against tyranny and foreign yoke as much as Shivaji
did two centuries later. While Shivaji's name is
written in gold in the annals of people's history of
India, Jasrat's is completely ignored in Pakistan.
Jasrat was to Sultanate what Shivaji was to Mughals.
Reading about Jasrat from several well-known history
books, one finds no mention of religious differences
among his followers. He was popular not only among his
tribe but his successful activities in central and
eastern Punjab suggest his popularity among other
tribes also. He was against foreign rulers who were
demanding lot more in taxes and tributes from his
people than they could afford.

This episode of our proud history of people's
resistance is lot more than providing us with a hero.
More importantly it illustrates, irrespective of their
beliefs, the frustration and disgust with the rulers
who were using ruthless coercion to an extent that a
significant number of people were willing to take up
arms and getting killed instead of acquiescing to the
demands of Turkish/ Afghan rulers. From Mahmud
Ghaznavi to Aurangzeb and even till 1947, the story is
same. Whatever coercive means the ruler would have
access to; would be applied with full fury. Whenever,
the people found even a slit in the window, they
jumped on the opportunity.

Great monuments, Taj Mahal, Badshahi Mosque or
Shalimar Gardens, beautiful they are, provide very
limited satisfaction, pride or identity. A barely
scratching of the surface of one-sided history affords
the coercive mechanism of worst kind underneath the
rosy top.

If this article has any merit, it raises a
million-dollar question. Why then so many people chose
to convert to the religion of coercive rulers? A
partial answer is to be found within the question
itself. The effects of prolong coercion spreading over
several generation results in the most suitable means
to cope with the situation. Suppose a benefit of 20
was distributed by a ratio of 17:2:1 between Turkish/
Afghan Muslims, Muslims of sub-continent origin and
non-Muslims respectively, it becomes attractive to be
part of 2 rather than 1. Many people belonging to 2
ultimately would try to join the 17 by cooking up
non-sub-continental heritage. A simple case of trying
to become fittest for better survival. Other modes of
conversion included influence of the Sufi who modified
their message in a way more acceptable to people,
hoping for a rise in the social status in an
extra-caste system and forced conversions. In the
beginning conversion really did not mean much and
communities remained indistinguishable based on
customs and traditions as the Jasrat episode suggests.
During the times of Guru Nanak, people moved between
Islam and Nanak's teachings without resulting in any
major rift. For this very reason, Guru Nanak was able
to preach with ease and many Muslims and even several
Western writers consider Nanak to be a Muslim Sufi
with extreme wahdat-ul-wujood (oneness with God) to a
level of complete disregard for Sharia'at (Muhammad's
teachings). A clear split between Muslims of Indian
origin and non-Muslims started to appear during Mughal
rule and the gulf appears to be widening ever since.

In the case of conversions to any religion in India,
neither religion nor converts are to be blamed and the
descendants of the converts are not guilty of anything
in this regard; none whatsoever. A poor peasant or an
artisan converting for any of a number of reasons has
nothing to do with the crimes against humanity
perpetrated by a group of people who happened to be
Muslims. No Pakistani should be blamed for the
miserable conditions of the past, created by the
ruling elite, unless and until he/she ardently
defends the cruelties of Turkish/Afghan Empires of
India, in effect, reproaching his/her own
forefathers.