The world of the Wise Lord

dost mittar/romair: If I may add my two bits on the food business - since when have panjabis become meat eaters?? In fact the standard put down pathans have of us panjabis is ``panjabi daal khor`` (panjabi daal eaters).

Romair#119:

``Just out of curiousity, are you a sociologist?``

I had a little bit of training in the subject and developed a deep interest in it, especially social anthrapology. In fact, this is part of the reason of my being on chowk.

On the topic, here is a standard line from Pakistani historians - this one is from http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A129 :
``The ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim community of South Asia to maintain their individuality by resisting all attempts by the Hindu society to absorb it. Muslims of South Asia believe that Islam and Hinduism are not only two religions, but also two social orders that have given birth to two distinct cultures with no similarities. A deep study of the history of this land proves that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were not confined to the struggle for political supremacy, but were also manifested in the clash of two social orders. Despite living together for more than a thousand years, they continued to develop different cultures and traditions. Their eating habits, music, architecture and script, are all poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dresses they wear are entirely different.``

BTW I do not entirely agree with this statement. As I said in my earlier post, culture was least affected by the change of faith. I also agree with you that the food habits of Panjabis are quite similar, with the exception of the preference for meat. And yes, this is based on my observations of parties of Pakistanis both here and in Pakistan. While you seem to have read quite a bit about how Indian visitors to Pakistan praised Pakistani hospitality, you seem to have missed the point some vegetarian visitors made about the challenges faced by them.

dost-mittar #118:``That is a problem some of us have in having a dialogue with you; sooner or later everything degenerates into an India-Pakistan thing and how Indians are misinformed about Pakistan and Pakistanis.``

You need to get out of trying to find problems with me. I don`t try to find problems with you. And lets leave it at that. Nothing is degenerating into anything. It is not a crime to be imisinformed about someone. Nor is it wrong to state that. I was misinformed about Indians, until I started meeting them on a regular basis........

Kindly argue the facts. But kindly keep the personal comments to yourself, if you don`t mind. Much like I keep my personal comments about you, to myself. Thanks.......

Lets look at your points, one by one:

1. ``still if you go to a Muslim party, you will find very few non-meat items while in a party of hindus and sikhs, only one or two items would be non-vegetarian.``

I don`t agree with this. It maybe true in India. But I certainly haven`t seen this in Pakistan. How many Muslim parties have you been to in Pakistan? Very few non-meat items? I don`t agree. It usually a mix of meat and non-meat items. And it is not done to, ``identify with the ruling class.`` It is done because meat-eating is allowed in the religion.

As for non-vegetarian items in India, I cannot comment. I have never been to India to attend one. But all the North Indian food I have seen outside India, at Indian friends house etc. tends to be very similar to Pakistani food. Almost identical.

2. ``The different take on history by muslims and hindus is there to see on every other article on chowk and needs no further evidence.``

This is actually not correct. A huge exageration. There are so many articles on Chowk, written by Muslims, which point to a common history. There are difference on how some people view that history, i.e. was Akbar a thief or a her, etc.. But people acknowledge the history. They do acknowledge Akbar existed, etc. Could you point to some individuals on Chowk, who are desendants of Hindus and refuse to recognize it.

And Chowk is a tiny little site. I am not sure how you can use this as your final evidence.

3. ``While both upper class hindus and muslims of my parents` generation (in Jhelum) wore salwars and the poor of both religions wore dhotis, they wore distinctive turbans. Hindus generally wore murkis (earrings) while muslims did not.``

Everyone wore the same clothes, except the fact that Muslims wore turbans and Hindus wore murkis. And that too in your parent`s generation in Jehlum. Is that enough evidence to indicate that it was done to show closeness to a ruling class? I don`t really know. Has it lasted all through history?

What about today? How have the traditional marraige dresses of the areas remained so common. As well as customs. Have you ever attended an Arabic Muslim wedding. Compare that to a Muslim wedding in Pakistan. Now compare the same Pakistani wedding to an Indian wedding. Which have more commanalities in dress and customs?

Now if you want to debate that with facts, I am all ears. Maybe my views are wrong. Maybe I am misinformed. But please stop trying to debate the person and start debating the topic........At the same time, I think you are asking for way too much, if you think I am not going to present my views and accept everything you stating, just because I don`t have a degree in sociology.........

Just out of curiousity, are you a sociologist?

Romair#117:

``I keep hearing this from Indians. I think this falls into the category of misinformation also. People who do not change their Hindu last names, will not change their customs either. Or food.``

That is a problem some of us have in having a dialogue with you; sooner or later everything degenerates into an India-Pakistan thing and how Indians are misinformed about Pakistan and Pakistanis.

With due respect, Romair, you have good debating skills and you are not rigid in your opinions about most things but sociology is not your forte. Please read some good book about the Panjabi society - I would recommend the highly readable `Punjabi Century` by Prakash Tandon (no relation of mine!) which describes the Punjabi society of West Punjab during the British Raj. If you do not have time for that, I suggest that you start reading the Dawn column by a man who writes under the name `Lahori` and you will get some snippets of the Punjab of old.

Now, to the question of food. During the British period, hindus were mostly vegetarians and were generally stererotyped as daal-eating weaklings. Most muslims also ate very little meat but only because they couldn`t afford it, still they would add a morcel or two of meat in everything they made, be it daal, rice or aloos. These days, most Pujabi hindus do eat meat; still if you go to a Muslim party, you will find very few non-meat items while in a party of hindus and sikhs, only one or two items would be non-vegetarian.

The dress too was distinctive. While both upper class hindus and muslims of my parents` generation (in Jhelum) wore salwars and the poor of both religions wore dhotis, they wore distinctive turbans. Hindus generally wore murkis (earrings) while muslims did not.

The different take on history by muslims and hindus is there to see on every other article on chowk and needs no further evidence.

Culture is one area which has been least affected by the change of faith.

dost-mittar #114: ``Unlike Iran, Turkey or Central Asia, Islam remained a minority religion in India and there remained a state of confrontation between it and the religion of the defeated people. Those who converted to islam had every reason to show that they belonged to the rulers and not the ruled. So, they adopted not only the names but also the script, food habits, costumes and even the history of the victors in an attempt to identify themselves with the ruling class.``

This is probably the reason. It seems to sound the most logical.

I don`t think the food, habits, costumes, history etc. have been adapted, though. I keep hearing this from Indians. I think this falls into the category of misinformation also. People who do not change their Hindu last names, will not change their customs either. Or food.

As an example, my family still follows all its Hindu marriage ceremonies, to the minutest detail. Islam only comes in at the nikah time. Similarly, I haven`t seen any difference between Pakistani food and North Indian food. Indian Punjabis still feel more comfortable chatting with me, at work, than with Tamil speakers from their own country. I feel more comfortable talking with them, than with someone who speaks Pushto only. etc.

So the change of history etc. could apply to the lower caste Hindus, who converted.

But, still why would a higher caste Hindu convert change his first name, if he was willing to keep his last name. Going by this discussion, my ancestors may (probably were) higher caste. Why did they change their first name? When they wouldn`t have if they were higher caste Parsis or Arab Christians?

P.S. I could have been a Brahmin, had grandpa not, ``seen the light.``. Maybe a high-profile member of the BJP. I could have sat over the lower caste Hindus on this site. Hmm........

NHK, Puran Singh, Poora, Pooro, Puran Chand, Rasal Singh, are common names amongst sikhs and Hindus...

They say, ``What is in a name. The rose smells as sweet with any name``. It means it is the character of the person or objects which gives meaning to the name and not vice versa. For instance `Yazid` is a good name but has become an abuse due to the character of Yazid, the despotic maluk. On the other hand, the name `Parvez` though considered anti-Islamic in the Muslim world is still very popular among Muslims. The present ruler of Pakistan proudly displays this name. but though he claims to be a sayyed he prefers not to display that title. He prefers, above all, to be called COAS with a uniform. What does it indicate?

Romair#113:
``The point still remains unsolved.``

...yes, it does and will probably remain in the realm of speculation. We have discussed this before and I had suggested then that the caste names were retained because you could take his gods from a hindu but not his caste, if he belonged to an upper caste.

But there is more. There are very few hindu panjabi rajputs. There are hardly, if any, arrain, khokhars ou janjuas among hindus or sikhs. What happened? My guess is that they all became muslims. It was not a case of individual conversions based on faith or coercion but a mass conversion based on political considerations. These fierce rajputs, who were at the forefront of fighting invaders, eventually adopted the policy of ``if you cant lick `em, join `em``. But while they were willing to give up their janeous, they were too proud to give up their castes, and haven`t done so even to date after several centuries. BTW this phenomenon of retaining caste was almost unique to Panjab, as the religion spread eastward, it spread to many lower castes who saw no reason to carry their caste names into their new religion. In fact, I wouldn`t be surprised if early rajput converts discouraged mullahs to convert lower castes into their religion and make them their equals. There is at least a recent precedent for that. Following the partition, while almost any upper caste hindu or sikh who remained in West Panjab was converted to islam, the so called ``choorhas`` were untouched by islam and became christians or remained hindus.

But why did they change their first names? While your question is only about name, you could also raise the same question about their food, costumes, language/script, literature, fairy tales, heroes and villains. Turks and Iranians did not give up in these areas either. This is not a trivial question because this was indeed the basis of the two-nation theory.

Again, my guess is that the answer is more political than religious. Unlike Iran, Turkey or Central Asia, Islam remained a minority religion in India and there remained a state of confrontation between it and the religion of the defeated people. Those who converted to islam had every reason to show that they belonged to the rulers and not the ruled. So, they adopted not only the names but also the script, food habits, costumes and even the history of the victors in an attempt to identify themselves with the ruling class.

I dont think that the situation was unique to India or even to Islam. I think that the same thing happened to converts in the Ottoman empire wherever christians were in majority, such as the balkans. And when the British came to India, christian converts also took foreign sounding names. Now, you find christians in Pakistan assuming Muslim sounding names for similar reasons. The recent converts to christianity in India tend to keep their Indian names after conversion. And if the saffronites succeed in India, you may even find some muslims giving indic names to their children.

...All this, of course, is pure speculation.

NHK #110: I am not quite sure whether Alexandar defeated Poros. There are theories out now, with some backing from artifacts of that time, that Alexander may have lost, or at least, not won.

The legend goes that Alexander was so impressed with Poros that he let rule even after defeat. Why would he burn Persopolis and leave Taxila and Jehlum alone, and that too with its original ruler? Only founding a tiny city in the name of his horse.

Maybe he allowed Poros to rule, because he was unable to defeat Poros. Maybe he signed a treaty, realizing this, and headed southwards, towards Multan and then towards Karachi and Pasni and back on to Persia.

People say his army stopped at this juncture when because they were missing home. That sounds like an odd reason for an Army to stop. Conquering armies tend to keep going and going, until they conquer everything they can.

Or until they get defeated.

Alexander is said to have died due to an arrow that hit him, when he was looking over a wall in Multan. This injury eventually killed him by the time he got going towards Babylon, through Persia on his return journey to Greece.......

So a couple of odd things happened. He let Poros go. He didn`t destroy anything. He got hit by an arrow, which eventually killed him. His army wouldn`t go any furthur beyond Hydaspes (Jehlum) river. And he did not found any large city, nor did he leave his people there in the area.

So, maybe he just got defeated........and his historians did the rest to hide it........

Also, is the small town Deena (close to Jehlum) named after the Greek goddess Athena? I have heard it is.

Thanks for an excellent introduction to Zoroastrianism.

The point still remains unsolved. Other than the caste theory, which partially answers it. Though it does not cover the first names. Why did the Muslims take the local names, or keep them after conversion, from Arabia all the way to Persia, but not when the entered into India? .......It cannot be something related to Arabic names. Because they did not switch to Arabic names when they went into Persia etc. What did they do in Spain? Did they keep the local names, or take Arabic names? How many people converted (were converted) to Islam in Undulusia?

In India, the reason could be because Muslims were unable or unwilling to convert the whole local population to Islam. Statistically speaking, almost all the parts of India, where they ruled, would have been converted to Islam, with the 600-800 period of Muslim rule. This seems to have been the trend of the time. Almost all of Arabistan is Muslim. As is Iran. As is Turkey. All of Spain was turned back into Christianity, after the Muslims were defeated, after 800 years. All the Black Muslim slaves were converted to Christianity by the Americans.

Yet India remained (was left as?) 2/3rd Hindu. And even another religion Sikhism was allowed to continue and take form and not completely destroyed. By today`s standard the Muslim rulers actions would be considered barbaric in converting so many people. But one would have to say, going by their own times, they seemed to have gone against the grain, in the sense that they did not convert the whole population. I wonder why they didn`t (couldn`), even though it happened in so many other areas of the world, in all other faiths.........Iran is not 2/3rd Parsi (and other pre-Islamic faiths), yet India is still 2/3rd Hindu..

Interestingly Pakistan`s national anthem is written in Persian (I think). And Pakistan is itself not an Arabic word, due to the P sound. Arabic does not have the G sound either (unless one talks to an Egyptian, who seem to replace the J with the G as in Gamal Nassar). So names like Gohar, Gul Khan etc. are also non-Arabic.

Urdu, unlike what most people think, actually has more commonality with Turkish than with Persian. Actually, it seems like it has more commonality with Punjabi than with any other language...........

On names

Why do we find so many Sikandars (Alexander) in Pakistan rather than Poros who defended the land against the conqueror?

Poros is a better sounding name than Sikandar.

The craze for Arabic names is waning - possibly another fallout of 9/11. Now people tend to opt for Persian or Turk names. Mulla`s fear is keeping them away from indiginous historical names. Has anyone heard a Punjabi with Puran Bhagat or Raja Risaloo names, the ancient Punjabi folklore heroes?

I have not heard any Punjabi girl named Leela, another beautiful sounding ancient Punjabi name.

nhk

rahulmal/amit#107: Hindu/local last names, among Muslims, are quite common, in Pakistan. They may even be the norm. In fact the last names seem to be more common amongst those Muslims who are geographically from the Pakistani province, then those who belong to the Muhajir group.

So you may see more Arabic/Persian last names in India, amongst Muslims. The normal convention in Pakistan to spot a Muhajir, by name, is that their last names tend to end in, ``choti yay,`` alphabet of Urdu, i.e. Siddiqui, Qureshi, etc.

While Wariachs, Gills, Tiwanas, Rajas, Talpurs, Khars, Bhuttos, Bajwas, Rajput etc. are quite common (maybe the norm) in Punjab, Sind etc. amongst Muslims.

However, as mentioned, Hindu first names are not. I suppose the cast theory, as presented by Amit, would be the closest reason. Although, why would someone from an upper cast change his/her first name? If they did not do so in Persia or in Arabia. Manoj Rajput could have easily remained Manoj Rajput. While Manoj Lowercast could have changed to Manoj Ahmad...........

Re:Romair#104

I think the real reason behind the naming convention is caste. When hindus in South Asia converted to Islam, the lower caste converts probably wanted to erase their past. Hence they took Arabic first and last names to make it unlikely for anyone to guess their lineage. However, the upper caste converts like the Rajputs and Khatris, wanted to still keep their caste ``equity``, i.e. the value of their lineage. They had to take one Arabic name to signify their change in religion, hence the Arabic first name, but they kept their last names to still get the benefits of caste. They correctly assumed that even in the converted population, people would still give a premium to caste. So why lose that benefit?

Typically I have seen Pakistani ``upper caste`` people with last names like Chauhan, Rana, Janjua, Khokhar, Khar, Bhutto, Tiwana, Bajwa, Sethi etc. The Khokhars are actually descendents of fierce Rajputs who fought against Muslim invaders for a long while. The Khars are descendents of Kharral Rajputs. The Janjuas are descended from Rajputs who cut off their sacred threads called ``Janeu`` upon conversion to Islam. The Tiwanas are Rajputs who migrated from Madhya Pradesh area in India and settled in Punjab.

In some ways, I am glad to see this practice in spite of its potential casteist connotations, because it provides concrete proof of ethnic linkages between Indians and Pakistanis (besides obvious physical similarities). In several of the above cases, like the Tiwanas, the different religious sections of the families like the Muslim Tiwanas and the Sikh Tiwanas actually kept family level contact across the great divide. For e.g. Kizhr Hayat Khan Tiwana, the Unionist Chief Minister of Punjab before 1947 had active contact with his hindu/sikh Tiwana cousins, as per his biography.

Re: # 104

Romair,

Interesting point! You talk of first names, heck I had not even heard of a Hindu last name (amongst Muslims). The first time I heard the name Najam Sethi, I rushed to my friend and told him that there are Hindus in Pakistan. He was skeptcial. He writes Urdu poetry and his exposure to Pakistan is much better than mine (has been going to common sites for a long time). He told me that it was a common practice in Pakistan to keep their Hindu last names.

In India, the only common thing is pet names. Bunty, Pappu, Munna, Chintoo etc. could turn out to be anyone of Sukhwinder, Mohan, Abbas :-)

Ref Romair #104

[Why didn`t Muslims take Hindu first names?]

Ask the right question and you may find the answer.

The right question is: why do Pakistani Christians and Hindus have first names (in public at least) such as Husain and Ahmad?

Because then they cannot be identified as being part of the religious minority and lynched.

Since in India that likelihood is small (despite Gujarat, which was a reaction to Godhra no matter what you Pakistanis think), Indian Muslims did not call themselves Anand or Mohan but took up names such as Ahmad and Mohammad. In addition to Pervez, Ijaz, etc.

In fact, it helped them invent fanciful connections to Prophet Muhammad, Taimur Leng, Genghiz Khan, or any other big shot you might want people to think you were descended from.