Understanding Punjab and History

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by ramana »

So Punjab is also extended Rajputana but with impact of Islam and the reaction to it.
Manu
BRFite
Posts: 765
Joined: 28 May 2003 11:31

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by Manu »

See my post in Understanding Sikh History-1
member_23052
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by member_23052 »

can anyone shed light on role of sikhs in 1857 rebellion? I mean behaviour of the general population, not only the rajas. were people pro-british (saw revolt as muslim outbreak) or was it more like rajputana (strong feelings against british though didn't participate early) as not much time had passed since anglo-sikh war?
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by SBajwa »

can anyone shed light on role of sikhs in 1857 rebellion? I mean behaviour of the general population, not only the rajas. were people pro-british (saw revolt as muslim outbreak) or was it more like rajputana (strong feelings against british though didn't participate early) as not much time had passed since anglo-sikh war?
In year 1849., The British Army (mostly composed of Biharis and Bangla) defeated the Sikh Army of Ranjit Singh which was disbanded.

Sikh soldiers of Bar (Beas Ravi) were sent back to their villages. Thus in 1857 British got

1. Mercenary soldiers from Patiala, Nabha, Jind and Kapurthala rajas.
2. Around the same time British decided to raise more "Punjabi" soldiers. Old Ranjit Singh soldiers were hired back into British Army

Many of the old Ranjit Singh's soldiers opposed that and got along with Baba Ram Singh Namdhari. Their band went around Punjab executing anybody selling beef, wearing British made clothes, etc. They were arrested in 1870s and executed (blowing up by the Cannons).

Punjabi population had no clue about rest of the India and we cannot judge the behavior of people in 1857 with lens of 2012.

Punjabi People in 1857 were mostly under the Kings of Patiala, Nabha, Jind or Kapurthala and rest under British for 8 years (not enough time to make any judgements)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by ramana »

x-post...
SBajwa wrote:
by Shiv
That probably means that before the 1850s Punjab was cultivable only along the rivers and that too those rivers were prone to flooding and changing course making settled life inconvenient. If true, this probably defines Punjab before 1850. The area may not actually have supported a very large population with many cities and towns. Fewer people means fewer resources like taxes and soldiers for kings. That would have made Punjab a "weak state" that was prone to invasion and take over by anyone who came. In that sense what Ranjit Singh did was amazing.

Exactly!!! All the Punjabi cities before 1880s building of the canals were on the banks of rivers and villages close by. The most populated was the Bar Doab. Bar doab was called the Heart of Punjab.

BAR Doab == Beaus and Ravi (Amritsar, Ferozepur, Batala, Lahore, Nankana Sahib, Sialkot, Kasur, Multan and even Harappan civilization is here)

Starting from Indian side of Punjab

Patiala is southern Punjab and closer to Rajasthan and is not between any rivers (unless going back in real ancient history when river Saraswati existed). This are was sparsely populated and the biggest city here was the Mughal City of Sarhind before Raja Ala of the Phulkian Misl carved the state of Patiala.

Satluj and Beaus Doab (Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar, Ludhiana) was the second most populated doab and most of the soldiers who got land in BAR doab along the canals were from this area.

Do (two) Ab (waters) means "Land between Two Waters"

The third was Rachana Doab is = Ravi and Chenab river., where cities like Gujranwala, etc. Sparsely populated.

The fourth populated was the Chaj Doab (Chenab and Jhelum river) which was not that much populated and later British created water colonies of Sargodha, Wazirabad, etc. The biggest city in this area is called Gujarat. This city was created by the Raja Bachan Pal Gujjar in 460 B.C (Gujjar are the people who take care of milk and milk products like Lord Krishna) This is the same city where Raja Porus faced Alexandar on the banks of Chenab.

Beyond which is the river Indus and cities like Rawalpindi which is a mixture of Punjab-Dogri-Kashmiri speaking people who speak a punjabi dialect called "Pothohari" .


----- Personal Anecdote

My grandfather was the only son and had two sisters. I remember talking to the surviving sister about their experiences at semi-colonized Lyallpur., she says that people were afraid of "Baluchis" abducting Women and thus they were always armed (even women carried weapons like Shotguns). The land was very hard with lots of "Kikkar" trees. check this picture.

Image

and her father who was still in process of making the land usable (out of 500 acres of land only 100 or so acres were made usable by his father (my great-great grand father)) and his daily routine was

1. Hiring the laborers.
2. Food/water/transportation of them.
3. Hiring paid gunmen to protect these workers from wild animals (killing snakes, etc).
etc.

-------
The success of Ranjit Singh was

1. Got together all the Sikh misls against foreigners.

2. Got modernized his forces with French and British tactics.

3. Got secular outlook so that "islamic" element could not be exploited by outsiders (as previously by Afghans and Mughals).

4. Got very smart in dealing with British to keep them away from invading Punjab.

But British being British played the State of Patiala (and Kapurthala, Nabha) against Ranjit Singh and eventually they took over Lahore while keeping Patiala sort of "Semi - independent" They took Ranjit Singh's son to London and converted him to Christianity.

Ranjit Singh while keeping British at bay focused on the areas beyond river Chenab and Jhelum and had spectacular success. Had Ranjit Singh got Patiala, Nabha and Kapurthala to along with him., british would have returned from Calcutta in early 1800s and not Delhi in 1947.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by ramana »

While in high school Banda Bahdur was one of my heroes!

Ascetic who became a Warrior

I thought he was a modern Drona type warrior saint.
Ascetic who became a warrior
Sunday, 28 July 2013 | Pioneer

Harish Dhillon has done a good job in depicting the life of Banda Bahadur, who was an ascetic to begin with, then turned into an apt administrator and is now being celebrated as a great general, says Sanjoy Bagchi

First Raj of the Sikhs: The Life and Times of Banda Singh Bahadur

Author: Harish Dhillon


Publisher: Hay House, Rs 499

The year 1707 was a turning point in the history of India. The last of the great Mughals, Aurangzeb, died campaigning for the conquest of the peninsular India. The Mughal obsession with the south had cost the empire dear. It had frittered away its resources; the treasury had been emptied; the crown lands had been gifted away to mansabdars for raising more men for the depleting army. The signs of the decline and disintegration were becoming more and more apparent.

The era also saw Punjab in the heartland of the Empire seething with discontent. Akbar and his successors had moulded a multi-religious society which began to disintegrate under the diabolic Islamic onslaught of Aurangzeb. Muslims began a merciless campaign against what they called infidels and their property. It was in this background that the last Guru of Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh, had created the Khalsa to fight back.

The Guru baptised five of his leading acolytes to represent the Khalsa, the Panth and the Guru himself. They were designated as Panj Pyarey, the top counsellors who were to guide the fight against the Mughals. At the same time he selected Banda Singh Bahadur as the leader and invested him with five arrows from his own quiver. He also gave him a nagada (drum) to call the faithfuls to join in the sacred mission, and a pennant as a symbol of his authority and as a point for rallying around in battles.

Soon after Banda Bahadur received the news of the Guru’s death. He embarked on a “deliberate confidence building campaign amongst all the poor and oppressed people, irrespective of their caste or religion. This was essential as years of living under tyranny had broken and crushed the spirit of the people”.

Banda Bahadur’s first encounter was with an unexpected adversary. Near Bangar in Hissar, the countryside was desolate and devastated by the depredations of a band of robbers. He laid an ambush in a deserted village and killed the entire gang when it sauntered in. After the defeat of the main gang, he systematically eliminated many other bands of robbers. This cleansing of the area earned him many more followers. It emboldened him to capture the government treasuries in Bhiwani and Sonepat as well as a revenue train from Kaithal. With this accumulation of wealth, he was now able to strengthen his force.

Banda Bahadur laid an intensive network of intelligence. His intention was to avoid pitched battles; he was going to rely on elements of surprise and speed; he wanted to strike at the weakest point of the enemy inflicting a crushing damage and then disappear before the enemy’s reinforcements could arrive.

Within two years of Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, Sikhs in Punjab had become a force to be reckoned with. It began with the battle of Samana, which was particularly important for Sikhs since its fauzdar had personally supervised the brutal execution of the ninth Guru. The city could not resist the onslaught. It fell and its inhabitants were killed and its riches were gathered for the war chest of Sikhs.

A series of quick victories followed. Ghuram, Thaskar, Thanesar, Shahbad and Mustafabad were captured in quick succession. The objective was the fortified town of Sirhind which was well defended. A weak spot in its wall was detected and the Sikhs poured into the citadel. After the capture of Sirhind, Banda Bahadur moved to subjugate Ghudani, Malerkotla and Raikot in quick succession.
Then there was a lull in military activities and some actions were conducted mostly in the nature of mopping-up operations. Banda Bahadur took this opportunity to consolidate his hold on the conquered territories between the Jhelum and the Jamuna.

Apart from abolishing the jizya system of discriminatory taxation, Banda Bahadur took three important steps to herald the birth of a new Sikh state. He established a mint at Lohgarh and first of the Sikh coinage bearing Guru Nanak’s inscription was issued. The second was to adopt an official seal that depicted the two most powerful sources of Sikh power: The degh or the cauldron and the tegh or the sword. The cauldron was used for cooking food in the gurdwaras which was eaten by everyone irrespective of caste or creed. It was the symbol of charity and equality. The sword symbolised the might of Khalsa that protected the oppressed from tyranny. The third measure was the adoption of a calendar of the Sikh era beginning with the victory over Sirhind.

At long last Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah, who succeeded Aurangzeb, moved north. On the way he stopped to deal with the recalcitrant chiefs of Rajputana. Then he reached the Punjab with the object of eliminating Banda Bahadur. He laid siege of Lohgarh. In view of the overwhelming strength of the Mughal army, the Sikh leaders decided to escape from Lohgarh and carry on the struggle from elsewhere. The Sikhs had decided to abandon the plains and return to the comparative safety of the eastern hills.

In the meantime, Bahadur Shah died and his death was followed by the usual internecine conflicts until a powerful successor emerged. Banda Bahadur took advantage of the confusion in the Mughal court to recapture Sadhaura and Lohgarh. But the new Emperor Farukhsiyar resumed the fight against Sikhs. Banda Bahadur’s forces were encircled in the Batala fort. The siege was so tight that those remaining in the fort were deprived of all food and were forced to surrender. Banda and his young son were tortured and literally butchered in 1716.

Author Harish Dhillon has done a good job in depicting the life of Banda Bahadur, who began his life as an ascetic, then turned himself into an able administrator and is now being celebrated as a great warrior. The book deserves to be widely read.

The reviewer is a Fellow of Royal Asiatic Society, London
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by ramana »

In search of Punjabiyat
In search of the punjabiyat
Sunday, 22 September 2013 | Utpal Kumar
12345 3
Was there indeed a shared identity that united Muslims and Sikhs of Punjab? Rajmohan Gandhi thinks so. In an interaction with Utpal Kumar, he bemoans the loss of Punjabiyat in India and Pakistan, and why it failed to withstand the horrors of Partition

Punjab

Author: Rajmohan Gandhi


Publisher: Aleph, Rs 695

Want to understand India and Pakistan? “Read the history of Punjab,” says Rajmohan Gandhi, in a way justifying his latest book, Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten. He, however, has one more reason to write this book. “No history of Punjab has been written in the past 125 years,” says Gandhi. So much has been written on Sikh history and Partition, he affirms, but Punjab remains an ignored bystander.

Gandhi’s decision, however, to start the history of Punjab with the death of Aurangzeb is contestable. After all, the the process of Punjabiyat, which he so fondly remembers, began with the advent of Islam in the region. It was the result of constant interactions — at times harmonious but often violent — between Hinduism and Islam. The decline of the Mughals could only ensure the rise of political Punjab.

That apart, the book is a product of labour and love. And of course nostalgia. Ask him about Punjabiyat, and he says with a tinge of sadness: “It hardly exists today. I often visit Pakistan and in cities like Lahore very few people remember those good old days. The younger generation is completely oblivious of this past. But why just Lahore, people in cities like Amritsar don’t know that not very long ago a large population of Muslims used to reside there.”

In an interaction with Agenda, Gandhi talks about the book and its principal protagonists. Excerpts:

What encouraged you to write this book on Punjab?

This has been a semi-conscious wish for a long time. The seed was sown in my boyhood when I was growing up in Delhi. Before Independence, Punjabi elements were hardly noticeable there. Partition changed it all. So, the desire to write about Punjab was there for long. Moreover, I believe you cannot understand modern India and Pakistan without understanding the history and culture of Punjab. Also, I was provoked to write this book because very few, if any, histories of undivided Punjab have been written so far. One may find excellent books on Sikh history, but these largely leave out Punjabi Muslims, who are three times the population of Sikhs. It’s my humble attempt to fill this gap.

Why does the book start with the death of Aurangzeb and end with Lord Mountbatten?

With the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the glory of the Mughal empire ended, and with Mountbatten the British empire bade a goodbye to the subcontinent. In between existed — and thrived — the Sikh kingdom. This explains why the book begins and ends the way it does. If Akbar has been seen as a paragon of virtue, Aurangzeb is painted in a villainous light. This book adopts a more balanced approached...Aurangzeb is not a central character in this book. But since the book starts with his death in 1707, I wanted to present a complete picture of him, not in black and white. No doubt, he was a fanatic, but there was more to him than his fanaticism.

You have written that the Muslim majority of Punjab failed to fill the vacuum after the Mughal decline. What made you think this?

After the decline of the Mughals, Sikhs across Punjab had a common purpose. They had sorted out the issue of social hierarchy. They became not just single people but also equal people. Muslims in Punjab, on the other hand, saw themselves as belonging to a clan, tribe, locality, etc. They did not come together even when they faced a common enemy. These two factors led to the rise of Ranjit Singh. It was the first time since the arrival of Muslims in the region more than 800 years ago that Punjab was ruled by one of its own. This also meant that for the first time in several centuries, Punjab’s Muslims were being governed by a non-Muslim establishment led by Jat Sikhs.

Tell us about Ranjit Singh and how he helped create Punjabiyat.

Sikhs had filled the political vacuum before Ranjit Singh came to power. Already there were Sikh chiefs in different pockets of Punjab. Ranjit Singh unified them all. While the Khalsa Sarkar, as his administration was called then, bore a clear Sikh-Hindu imprint (in those times Sikhs and Hindus were mostly seen as one), Ranjit Singh desired Muslim loyalty as well. During his first takeover of Lahore, Ranjit Singh’s earliest public acts had been to pay homage to two mosques — the Badshahi Mosque, which Aurangzeb had built, and the Wazir Khan Mosque, constructed by one of Shahjahan’s generals. Also, he made a Muslim, Imam Baksh, the city’s kotwal, along with a few others in the affairs of administration.

Yet, Muslims did not have much say in the kingdom’s management. The Maharaja’s favourite officers were Dogras, Sikhs and Brahmins. Also, the kingdom was not entirely free of religious tension. Bans on slaughter of cows and restrictions on public calls for the Islamic prayer (azaan) were imposed in many places. Even the Badshahi Mosque was later turned into a storeroom for keeping arms.

These restrictions apart, the fact remains that there was a fair amount of tolerance and freedom, and people of all faiths were, on the whole, free to do whatever they wanted to do. This is evident from the fact that many descendants of Ranjit Singh’s Muslim officers were in prominent positions during Partition. The ancestors of Sir Khizar Hayat Tiwana, Premier of Punjab between 1942 and 1947, had served Ranjit Singh. So were the forebears of Sir Fazli Husain, a prominent Punjab politician of the 1920s. Had Ranjit Singh been deeply anti-Muslim, then these officers wouldn’t have become what they eventually became.

I find a bit of contradiction in the book. You have mentioned how “not a single Muslim chief of standing” in Punjab didn’t support the jihad of a Barelvi ideologue from the United Provinces against the Sikh kingdom. Yet, when British came, most leading Muslim families of West Punjab supported the East India Company. How do you explain this?

What appears as contradiction at the first sight is actually a complexity of the situation. We need to understand that Muslims in Punjab had some sort of restrictions, and they were not very happy with the situation. Yet, when a Muslim ideologue issued a call for jihad against the Sikh kingdom, it failed to inspire Muslims in the region. It’s because even if they had succeeded in uprooting the Sikh kingdom, there was no viable alternative available to replace it. People, thus, preferred the safety of the Sikh kingdom rather than the uncertainty of a post-jihad scenario. But when the British emerged in the Indian political horizon, things became different. Here was an alternative to the Sikh rule and so most leading Muslim families supported the British.

During the 1857 mutiny, we find Punjabis helping the British subdue what they called poorbiya troops. It’s understandable why Sikhs joined hands with British as they were uneasy about the rise of the Mughals. But why were Punjabi Muslims indifferent to the revolt?

This proves that people don’t always see themselves as Hindus and Muslims. This also explains that Islam isn’t one-dimensional, as some of us would like to believe. We need to understand that the Mughals were perceived as outsiders in Punjab. Even Punjabi Muslims didn’t like them much, as they had disrupted lives in the region. Also, Muslims were grateful to the British for dislodging the Sikh rule in Punjab. The memory of the Badshahi Mosque not being a mosque, ban on azaan and cow slaughter, etc, was still fresh in their minds.

How do you explain the rise of the Unionist Party in Punjab?

The Unionist Party was an interesting phenomenon. True, it was a feudal party, but it had one good thing: It was not confined to a particular religion and had Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs as its members. This was not true of other political parties, including the Congress, which was largely seen as a Hindu party in Punjab. The Unionist Party was against Partition, but the Congress refused to deal with it. Agreed, the Congress had fundamental differences with the Unionist Party (the latter supported the Raj, while the former opposed it; the latter was a landlord’s party, while the former believed in land reforms), yet the two should have joined hands for the sake of bigger causes like Partition. The Congress should have engaged a lot more vigorously with the Unionist Party. Sadly, this didn’t happen.

The idea of Punjabiyat, which you espouse so intensely in the book, failed at the very sight of Partition. Why did this happen?

The seeds of discord were sowed by the British empire, which emphasised on creating good relations with Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs on a one-to-one basis. The British dealt with them separately and, thus, prevented any meaningful Hindu, Muslim, Sikh dialogue to take place. This explains why the concept of Punjabiyat couldn’t withstand the horrors of Partition.

Partition is a fiercely debated subject with some blaming the Congress, others the Muslim League, and a few questioning the role of the British. How do you see this tragic event?

It was a collective failure. The Congress failed to engage with the Unionist Party, thus providing the Muslim League a chance to sneak away with its sinister design. The British were responsible for following the divide-and-rule policy. For me, however, it was the local leadership of Punjab that disappointed the most. They were mostly looking towards London and Delhi for orders, or Mahatma Gandhi or Mohammed Ali Jinnah for guidance. Punjabiyat failed because of the failure of the Punjabi leadership.

Punjabiyat is very alive in India.

As I said to Jhujar once "There is Punjabi in every Indian. Only its well hidden in others!"
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by Shanmukh »

Folks (Particularly directed towards RajeshA-ji, SBajwa-ji, and others from the Punjab-Jammu region),
Trying to understand an anomaly in the demographics of Punjab. In 1921, the total proportion of Christians in all of Punjab was about 1.7%. Almost all the Christians were localised in the Lahore subdivision of the region-everywhere else it was less than 2% (nearly 0 in most places, actually). But in the Lahore subdivision, the proportion of Christians was 6.1%! In particular, in Sialkot, Christians formed 10.5%, in Gurdaspur 8.2%. in Lahore 5.3%, in Gujranwala 5.1% and in Sheikhupura 4.8%. Is there any specific reason for the predominance of Christians in this region? Grateful if anyone has any specific insight into this matter.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by SBajwa »

But in the Lahore subdivision, the proportion of Christians was 6.1%! In particular, in Sialkot, Christians formed 10.5%, in Gurdaspur 8.2%. in Lahore 5.3%, in Gujranwala 5.1% and in Sheikhupura 4.8%. Is there any specific reason for the predominance of Christians in this region? Grateful if anyone has any specific insight into this matter.
Historically there are three regions
Cis-Sutlej States (Delhi and all the way to River Satluj) were mostly patiala maharaja, Nabha, Jind. Missionaries did not had that much of a success in this area., as the rulers were protectorate of British.

Khalsa Kingdom (Satluj and all the way Across the river Indus to Khyber) to Sindh in South (ruled by British) and Jammu and Kashmir.

The Hill States on Himalayas (Garhwal, Himachal, etc)

After the Anglo-Sikh wars Only the Khalsa Kingdom was totally assimilated into British kingdom., the last son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh named Daleep Singh was made Christian and was sent over to London (He never returned) and his mother exiled over to Nepal.

British made several colleges/universities and churches all over this area (and later even cities like Montgomery (now called Sahiwal), Lyallpur (Faisalabad), etc). My own father studied at Baring Union Christian college in a small city of Batala in Gurdaspur district. My own village always had christians whom we in local punjabi called "Hassai" i.e. "Isai". They were mostly involved in cleaning jobs and had separate utensils and separate burial ground far away from the other folks. That tells me that all most all of the people that were involved in skinning hides, cleaning work, etc were converted over to Christianity (but they kept their work). Similarly in Ropar district (under Patiala) there was a large number of Ravidassia Sikhs (Kanshi Ram who created BSP party was Ravidassia Sikh) who never converted.

Thus even today in Pakistan the Christians are involved with cleaning work while rest have moved on.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by Shanmukh »

Thanks, SBajwa-ji. Very interesting info. But to probe a bit about the info you have put out, if I may.
1) Where did the converts to Christianity come from? Hinduism? Sikhism? Or perhaps even Islam?
2) Looking over the land ownership pattern of Punjab, I can see that much of the land reclamation for agriculture (particularly west of the Chenab) was done by Jats, Rajputs & Arains, who mostly went from Indian Punjab and the border region. The former two are found among all three (Sikhs, HIndus & Muslims), but the Arains seem to be Muslim only. Are there any non-Muslim Arains? Also, who were the original landowners west of the Chenab? Your insight would be welcome.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by SBajwa »

who are Arains? Are they same as Kamboh?
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by Shanmukh »

SBajwa wrote:who are Arains? Are they same as Kamboh?
Yes, they are the same. At least, the Arains seem to be a subset of the Kambohs.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5777
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by SBajwa »

Jatts are land owning people and so are Kambohs, Lubanas and Rajputs. And all four are found in all three communities Hindu, Sikh and Muslims.

Most of the Hindu Jatts, Kambohs, Lubanas and Rajputs in Punjab became Khalsa (Sikh) while rest became Muslims (around 50-50). Punjabi Khatri though have more numbers among Hindus than Sikhs or Muslims.
Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3042
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by Shanmukh »

Thanks, SBajwa-ji.
Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6470
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by Supratik »

Are you sure Arains are a subset of Kambohs? Many Arains apparently falsely claim to be of Arab descent. They are more likely an agricultural caste of PJ. I read somewhere there are a few Hindu Arains around Delhi region. Not sure how true.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by RajeshA »

nageshks ji,

just read your DM. I've been away from the scene for too long a time. So can't tell. However I can only say that I did one school class in a Convent school in the Gurdaspur region. Even 40 years back there was presence of these schools there, and they used to provide "good education". I think many well to do people send their kids to such schools and some of the influence rubs on on them.

Actually heavy presence in "quality" schools and hospitals is a good strategy, and persistence over several decades does pay off.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3800
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by Paul »

Zia was an Arain. Supposed to be vegetable growers as opposed to farmers. Remember reading in Hindu many decades ago
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by ramana »

Punjab's downfall started with the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh before he could complete his conquest and consolidate his kingdom which was bigger than Britain and France combined.

A tribute to Maharani Jinda:

https://kulveersamra.wordpress.com/2015 ... -standing/

And:

https://virtualvictorian.blogspot.com/2 ... ahore.html
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Punjab and History

Post by ramana »

Essay on Revolutionary Networks in India in WWI

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.n ... orks_india
Post Reply