In Search of Identity : Tribal Warriors

Shah Sahib,

Interesting article, but needed a better articulation.

Regarding your comments:

"Those freedom loving tribes are still bearing US/Western Defacto-Colonialism with help of local Establishment."

I think the greater damage to some of the finer Pashtun traditions has occured from the worsening of religious bigotry, than from any Western influence.

While Pashtuns have long been noted for religious conservatism, in the past this was balanced with some tribal codes of honour that earned Pashtuns the respect of many including non-Muslims of the region. The increased influence of Arab version of Islam in recent decades has been at the expense of many of those original traditions.

A century ago, a bunch of Pashtuns serving in the Guides Infantry did not show their face to their unit for months, until after they'd gone to lengths just to recover one rifle they had lost in a skrimish. Such values are a far cry from what can be expected from any of the pawns of the Taliban on the scene today, who would be more fixated about making the non-Muslims of Kabul wear yellow armbands.

So if you seek to counter the perceived assault on your identity by a "retun to Islam", my humble advice would be to first pause and decide, which version of it you want to follow. Hopefully it is not the one that has been making religious loonies out of people lately.

nah, romair, that does not seem compelling. I will explain why, and then may be someone who knows history better can say whether that is true or not.

It simply wasn't the case that Muslims were the ruling power everywhere all the time ever since they showed up. In early years we had Hindus and Muslims ruling over different parts of the country. In the south, Hindu and Muslim kingdoms existed beyond the reach of the Mughals, often.

They fought together, against one another, often. But I just don't think (or know of) a situation where a Muslim king assisted a Hindu king in overpowering and conquering another Muslim king, taking over the latter's land etc.

Now hopefully someone who knows the history of Hindu and Muslim kingdoms in India can tell us whether that posibiltiies ever actually existed or not.

----------

Now, if such a possibility never existed then we are left with a hypothetical - what would have happened IF....and I would agree with you, we can't base any conclusions on that!

dost-mittar/Eklavya #: "You have not given a single example to show where a Muslim ruler assisted a Hindu ruler against another Muslim ruler. Most of the examples you gave are really an elaboration of what I had said,"

.......i gave the example of nizam and marathas ganging up on mysore.....they, first, did it against hyder ali (however he was able to neutralize the alliance).....then they did it again, and defeated tipu sultan (thereby in my opinion, destroying the biggest chance any south asian had, i.e. tipu - of defeating and kicking out the british from south asia).....

if i remember correctly, tipu had 30,000 soldiers....while they were attacked by 50,000 maratha, hyderabad and british troops (out of which, only 4000 or so were british)....

i recommend reading dalrymple's white mughals for details......it includes letters from the battle, itself.....

.......another example, though it is not documented well (hence may be a myth) was a raput rani asking for the help of humayun, against a muslim nawab from gujurat.....

.....in general, the list of examples, you are looking for, will only exist in the post-mughal days......not before......not for the communal and religious reasons you are highlighting.....but due to the power dynamics.......

.....muslim (kings) ruled over south asia as the major controlling power for 600-800 years......when they first invaded, the battles were, obviously, between muslim invaders and hindu locals......hence the alliances you are looking for, would be impossible then.....

....once they took over, as the mian power in south asia, then all the local hindu rulers were either, directly subordinate to them....or had to form alliances with them to ensur their survival......in this scenario, the muslim king would ally with a hindu king to attack another hindu king.......

......during this time, south asia was invaded......however, the biggest invaders who successfully defeated the ruling kings, were also muslims.......so it was muslim vs. muslim again......in such a scnario, the local hindu kings, did ally themselves with the muslim rulers to fight invaders (i gave some examples).....hence a muslim allying with a hindu to defeat another muslim scenario was not possible here either, since the local power and the invading power were both muslims.........

......this continued till the disintegration of the mughal empire.....if a local allied hindu king was attacked by a small time local muslim nawab who was not an ally, the muslim king would come to his rescue (i assume).....

.......however, there was no hindu king who could challenge the local muslim dynasty, either internally, or as an invader.....hence your scenario couldn't come up.....

....after the mughal demise, all kingdoms of powerful breakaway groups were formed.....in this the big ones were marathas, nizam, mysore, ahmed shah, siraj ud daula and to a smaller degree and smaller timeframe the sikhs.......out of these most were still muslims....so even after the decline of mughals.....most of the powerful breakaway kings were muslims.....

this is when the scenario which you want highlighted could come into play.......and did come into play......

there was no central powerful muslim ruler (who wuld never tolerate the existence of a powerful hindu (or another powerful muslim) ruler); much less ally with one to extend the hindu ruler's empire....

....in this scenario the breakaway muslim rulers did need the alliance of breakaway hindu rulers to defeat other breakaway hindu and/or muslim ruler.......

and these alliances were formed.....central and south india was being rotated between marathas, nizams and mysore (with british also coming in)...and they were ready to form alliances, regardless of religion, to consprie against each other......

the ghakhars in your neck of the woods in punjab, also on occassion, joined the sikhs against the british....by that time there was no muslim powerful king there.....and i gave the example of mughal muslim king and hindu mutineers joining against british.......

the scenario you are highlighting would be possible now, as the defacto power in south asia, now (after 1000 years) is hindu.....now bangladesh could join with india to destroy pakistan etc......

however, most of the past 1000 years (specially till mughal downfall), there were no powerful hindu rulers or invaders, who could challenge the defacto muslim kings......hence the lack of alliances.....(people tend to form alliance with those they feel will win, not with those they feel aren't powerful enough and will lose).......the weaker power always forms alliances with an equal or stronger power to fight another stronger power.......

Romair, Punjabi Muslims did not believe in Pakistan in quite the same way as UP Muslims or Bengali Muslims did. For them it was a political decision, just as it was for Sindhis. These people wanted power, and were willing to give up their Punjabiness and Sindhiness to get that power.

(Balochis and many Pushtoons had to be brought into Pakistan kicking and screaming. Sindhis like G M Syed and HP went back to complaining once they found Punjabis hadn no use for them.)

Romair#90:

You have not given a single example to show where a Muslim ruler assisted a Hindu ruler against another Muslim ruler. Most of the examples you gave are really an elaboration of what I had said, namely,
"Hindus have sided before with one of the warring Muslim groups; it was quite common in the Mughal battles of succession.:

Please do grant me the basic knowledge that Rajputs fought alongside Muslims under the Mughals, whether against other Hindus or Muslims. And they, of course, fought against the common enemy, the firangi, during 1857.

As regards Nizam and Marathas, do read ahmedmadani's very detailed description of their 'relationship' in post #85. It is quite clear that while there was no love lost between the Mughals and the Nizam, the latter was quite prepared to do battle against the Marathas for the former.

Eklavya #: "They did it very willingly and clearly as a bargain: they were getting and building a country in which they could be the clear hegemons. They literally rule the new country. And they do so in the name of Islam."

....i truly hope this isn't what is taught about pakistan in india.......

...as mentioned earlier, punjabis (specifically their leadership) did not even join the pakistan bandwagon, till mid 40s......hence it is obvious, they weren't, "planning a country where they could be hegemons"......

not very good planning, if you don't even want it created.....they were brought in, kicking and screaming by jinnah......

dost-mittar's point about the punjabi elite already speaking urdu (and/or persian) is probably, valid.....hence, apparently, punjabi elite had already been using the courtly language of urdu/persian for their communication........

do study the creation of pakistan and the sequence in which various provinces joined in.......pakistan was, overwhelmingly, a bengali muslim and UP muslim creation......in the 36 elections, muslm league only won 2 seats in punjab.......

sindhis, baluchis, pathans and punjabis weren't too big on pakistan's creation, because they were a majority in their regions, hence had no fear of hindu domination......

romair, you have not done justice to dm's query.

From a communal/Islamic point of view, a Muslim king will not assist a Hindu ruler in conquering or defeating a Muslim ruler (so the Hindu ruler could gain power over hiw Muslim adversary).

If there are many examples to the contrary, then that theory is obviously false.

dost-mittar #: "Did Nizam help Marathas against Tipu or did he and Marathas help the British against the Tipu?"

...for someone who has made such a sweeping statement about no muslim assisting a hindu ruler against muslims, one would have hoped you would have done your research....

.....the history of south asian battles, are exactly the opposite of what you have stated....they are filled with alliances between hindus and muslims and mulsims and hindus against hindus and against muslims......

........more importantly, the armies each of the rulers had, were not, exclusively of one religion.....any kings army had muslim, hindu and european commanders.....the king could be a hindu, the general a muslim, the person supplying the arms a parsi, and those training the troop european....

....this seems to the be the norm and not the exception, as far as i have studied this history......

some examples:

1. ....even before the marthas and nizams joined together with the british against tipu, they had carried out an independent crusade against tipu's mysore empire.....the mysore empire, the deccan empire and the maratha empire were, regularly, in a constant state of war to control south india......two with muslim kings, one with a hindu king......

2. most of the battles that hyder ali fought were not as a muslim ruler of mysore.....he was actually serving a hindu knig of the region, as the later's general in command.....in fact, even after hyder ali became the most powerful person in the region, he did not get rid of the wodeyar kings.......hence he was, technically, still, a muslim general in their army, fighting the british, hyderabad etc.

when tipu sultan came into power, he, officially, removed the wodeyar king (later brought back by the british in a ceremonial capacity)

3. the mughals had a historical alliance with the rajputs and rulers of jaipur (jai singh and family)......the two fought alongside each other, often commanding armies......shah jehan sent his son(s) and jai singh (don't recall which number) to fight the battles against persian muslim king (abbas shah?) in balkh and central asian regions......the muslim and hindu united fighting a muslim....

.....the rulers of jaipur and mughals also united against the father of the maratha dynasty (which i believe is seen by most indian historians as the first major, "hindu" challenge to muslim power)......in fact shivaji, the father of the maratha dynasty was captured by jai singh, in a joint venture with the mughals....

......when shah jehan died, dara shikoh asked jai singh to join him in attacking one of dara's brothers for the throne.....a muslim prince and a hindu nawab fighting a muslim prince (the muslim princes being each other's brothers)

4. the biggest example is, perhaps, the mutiny of 1857.....contrary to popular belief the mutiny was, carried out, primarily, by hindu soldiers in the british army......they were a majority of the mutineers......however, they all went to delhi to the muslim king bahadur shah, declaring him their ruler......

this alone may require a need for you to reconsider the communalism theory from mohd bin qasim days.......

......the muslim mughal king, with his majority hindu rebels then fought the christian army....they would have won, comfortably, had one event not taken place...........the punjabi subjects (and soldiers) of the british refused to mutiny and, actually, joined in with the british to fight the mughal king and his hindu mutineers......

punjab was a muslim (and sikh) area......

there are plenty of other examples.....it would have been impossible to have exclusively muslim or hindu alliance and armies during those days, as everyone was living in an intermixed environment and evey king (muslim and hindu) was fighting (or making alliance with) every other king (hindu or muslim) to gain maximum control over the spoils of the failing mughal empire.......

......i don't think there is much truth in the historic view of an exclusively hindu maratha army and an exclusively sikh army, rising up and finally defeating the exclusively muslim mughal army (and nizams army and mysore empire), thereby bringing to end the muslim rule in south asia......

Romair#87:

Pakistani Punjabis didn't give much in 1947. Educated Punjabis never considered their language to be more than a 'boli' and used Urdu as a medium of written communication and education even before 1947. This was true not only of Muslims but also Hindus and Sikhs who always corresponded in Urdu. Punjabi elite always had a disdain for their language except when it came to songs or gaali galoch.

Punjabi blossomed in East Punjab after the partition as it was made the state language. In fact, Punjabi never had it so good as it does today. There are at least two Punjabi Universities and Punjabi departments in Delhi and other universities.

I am not so sure of the Punjabi Muslims' 'sacrifice' in abandoning Punjabi in favor of Urdu.

They did it very willingly and clearly as a bargain: they were getting and building a country in which they could be the clear hegemons. They literally rule the new country. And they do so in the name of Islam.

That option of hegemony simply isn't available for sindhis, pushtoons, and balochies to abandon their language the way Punjabi Muslims have decided to. I am not sure they would like to.

---------------

song and dance is fine, but a language is at death's door when it is not taught formally to children and its literature is not continuously constructed.

Eklavya #: "What is clear is that IF newer generations of people move away....cease to exist as disinct people."

...this is probably true......though there are other factors, which will keep these cultures alive....e.g. punjabi music, songs, movies etc. in pakistan are a dominant force.....non-punjabi singers regularly sing in punjabi......

..."But remember, Pakistani Punjabis clearly made a bargain. They exchanged their language and their culture for political hegemony over a limited geographical space (of Pakistan). Sindhis/Balochis/Pushtoons don't get that bargain."

.....actually, if you talk to punjabis, they feel they made the ultimate sacrifice.....the gave up their dominant language - punjabi - for a minority language - urdu.....

punjab is 62% of pakistan, hence the language of pakistani should be punjabi.....and would have been punjabi, had urdu not been introduced......

...till 1946, punjab wasn't even in favor of pakistan; much less in favor of urdu......

......having said that, i think people in (west) pakistan have accepted urdu, without too many problems......

"Romair, we are talking here of and to people to whom these things - language, nationality etc matter,"

....my comment was not related to languages....it was to the relationship between india and pakistan, etc. and how these people view and relate to it.....

One of great contributor mr Romair is right afgain. I agree with him. Any language which slowly not used dies. Urdu is lingua Franka now in Punjab. Now no punjabi sents children to punjabi medium school as they do not exist. There is logic in this. As a successor state to Mughal empire and being major group urdu is language of empire. Urdu is also getting trouble as no respectfful man will send children tourdu medium but only to englsi. Only poor and madrassa go urdu. When somebody says punjabi poets in usa etc that sign of terminal death , it will be slow but sure. Just as old aremic, latin , sanskrut and so will be punjabi. Language which is used survives rest goes slowy down.May it will survive in east Punjab. It is greatness of punjabi people for unity they abandoned mothertongue and adopted urdu.They are peal pakistanis who are sacraficing something for unity of country hope minories goive them some credit ( no credit is given fo rgood sacrafice but problems are blamed on groups always.
Good day.It is bad day toady i feel.

Re: # 84 There was no love lost is true but there was equilibrium established with even personal history.
When Nizam made" State of Hyderbad" Mughals sent largest army they can muster to defeat him. Nizam requested marathas ,Bajirao not to interfere and join Mughals. Rag tag army of peshavas (30,000 cavalary of irregulars) shadowed Mughals and Nizam battle along central India along Narmada and happy to see mughals of Delhi were defeated as then mughal power declined. For his not entering on otherside he honored young peshava (hardly 22-became pM at age of 16, only matched by younger William pit PM of britain.) years while nizam was most experienced generalin whole of India trained under Alamgir) with Diamonds in City of Aurangabad in Person. Then Peshava and Nizam after met in central India and Nizam had great artillary which marathas lacked. Then surprise emerged young PM out generaled Nizam and deafeated Nizam with his ragtag army at Palghat. ( People who wants to read and understand can read my favorite writer our own Major Pavo.)_. Nizam was encircled and his army began to starve , peshava used his strategic mobilty to overcome disadvantage of numbers and was afraid of Nizam artillery ) and stalemet was ended with advantage with marathas.Then relived pressure from Nizam young Maratha began to visit Delhi on Regular basis though he never entered Delhi. His most dramatic encounter against Nizam was dramatic. To take care of Marathas once for all Mughal emperor told Nizam to destroy marathas and he will be added many lands. Marathas and Nizam met at Narmada. With Artillery and superior numbers maraths refused to battle, they witdrew south of river Narmada and Nizam was awarded oornments ans great Kitabs by Mughal Rulers. Maraths with drew and split in two groups. Main army kept contact with nizam forces but refused to battle. Small cavalary of 25,000 split and peshava went west and reached delhi via Ajmer and they established bridgehead at lake/ zil along Delhi. This was shock to Mahamdashah as heand nizam both felt maraths were defeated at conflit at Narmada. The mughals have army 100,000 in Delhi but they were shell shocked to come out to fight the ragtag cavalary. Mraths knew they have no artillery moved 35 miles south to Kothputali and went south. This made laughing stock of Nizam.
Then after few years peshava becaME defacto overlord of central India.
Last great attempt was made to defeat marathas and again Nizam was assigned this job and great war of 1730s started. Nizam made two groups main army led by him and other 30,000 elites forces led by his son Nassir Jung. Both groups started chasing marathas. Maraths also divided in two groups and refused battles but kept contact. One followed Nassir Jung led by Peshavas young brother appaji and other led by peshava. As they moved towards central india and chasing maraths the secondary maratha armys started burning mughal areas and looting cities. Barhanpur was sacked 4 times. Peshava refused battle for he knew at man power and artillery he was not match. He exhausted Nizan for two years and it began to starin Nizam. His army began to gruntle about fruitless chess and he made strategic blunder of withdrawing to big city and resting and recupurate his army. Peshava was precisely waiting for it. When Nizam entered Bhopal marthas set loose encirclemet initially and with time the ring tightened. Attempts were made for break throgh but in vain.Army began starving and horses began to die for lack of fodder. So finally nizam asked for compromise. Maraths asked for 80 Rs lakhs for indemity and officially mughals ceded areas south of Jamuna and north of Narmada to maratha except "Aeadh" area. Nizam was lucky and grateful to peshava to let him go alive. That was treaty of narmada.
Peshava was given Sardeshmukh title for malva and bundelkhand.
Then Nizam tried to deafeat marathas two times and was defeated both times at Rakshasbhuvan and Udgir and that was end of Nizam problem for marathas.
Incidently marathas defeated in 1818 and again in 1857 but nizam was smarter than both mughals and marathas as he accepted british supremacy and survived more than anybody. Nizanm was very smart, when unjustly british annexed his berar terrotary as bad ruler he was smart to concede as british were hoping he will be provoked start war so thay can take over. It is sad hindu fasict Nehru and vallabhb l;iquidated his over 300 years going state of hyderbad. Note gandi and Jinnah was dead so they can do it. Last nizam was great man be he was driven to ordinary king, and lastly nehru's daughter even took aways his cars state flags. But he was lover of his people and decided to die in hyderbad his place rather than go to usa , uk etc. Nehrus daughter stole his all ornaments for her foreign daughter in law mow all stuff will be given to rahuls white wife from usa , stuff is in safe in delhi with mrs gandhi, real usurpers of nizam wealth.
It is sad all Khajana is looted by ordinaery nonroyals who do not know nothing about diamonds, gold, silver , ruby and precious stonews. Disguating. Bad part is somes times stats go away without whimper.

Did Nizam help Marathas against Tipu or did he and Marathas help the British against the Tipu?

There is no love lost between the Nizam and the Marathas. I think basically, Brits made a deal with Nizam and the Marathas. Tipu was taking/seeking French help.

Re: # 81

"Please listen to some punjabi wedding and folk songs, you will hardly find any turkish, arabic or persian (i.e urdu) word in it"

This came out the wrong way. What I wanted to say was that very few of words used in these punjabi songs and literature are in the literary urdu literature.

And punjabi is much older than the sikh religion. You are probably thinking of gurmukhi which indeed is the script of the Sikh holy book. Incidentally, gurmukhi itself is a sanskritised adaptation of a Hindu Khatri script, landay, by a Khatri, Lehna Trehan. Ironically, Khatri hindus have now disowned gurmukhi.

Re: # 80 It was tripact bewtween Marathas, Britich, and Nizam .