The world of the Wise Lord

Re: # 163

Wonderful dear mittar! No match for your depth of knowledge and objectivity.
A case of mass conversion to Islam is that of Pathans. They sometimes openly threatened to leave Islam en masse as they had accepted it
if this meant deliverance from Punjabi dominance. It apperas the mass conversions are purely politicaliy motivated. But I wonder at Hinduism. They resisted conversion to Islam despite a thousand years of subjugation by Muslim rule. How do you explain this?

Rkhan #156

Thanks.

nhk

Re: # 32 Layman

`` hence you can contact me at laymanlayman@yahoo.com if you want a copy of the spreadsheet. ``


Don`t offer thing you cannot provide......!!!!

# Urstruly with reference to your post # 40

``As far as I know, the Holy prophet (pbuh) has spoken highly of Zorthustra``

and

`` Zortostarians were made exempt, since they were considered the people of Scripture; according to Qura`nic injuction in Repentence 9:29 and Hadith the `People of the Book` are considered exempt from Jizya. ``

I have tried to search google...and the link you Gave....But could not find.... any exact reference to any hadith.... regarding this...

Yes... the same is mentioned...there.....like you said..
But ....I am an ignorant person... please could you give any exact link....from where I could verifiy this.... or the Hadidh... regarding this....

Mass Conversions and Hindu rigidity. I read somewhere that Hindus were (are?) extremely rigid in dealing with converts. Many Hindus converted temporarily (like in 47), to save property and life. Hoping for a day to convert back. Hindus wouldn`t even share food with other Hindus who had gone to muslim nations to fight under the British rule.

Kashmiri muslims who wanted to reconvert under sikh and then Dogra rule were not welcomed back by the intolerant Brahmins. This rigid stance has hurt Hinduism too.

Humsab:

``Indians do accept the fact that mass conversions may have occurred but not voluntarly on large scale.``

I guess this would depend upon what you may call voluntary. When I used the expression ``if you cant beat `em join `em`` it was implied that there were powerful incentives in switching sides. The plight of the defeated people has never been a pretty one in world history, the plight of the victim of islamist conquerors was worse because they were armed with quranic verses and sharia which seemingly gave them the license to kill and rape defeated non-believers. As we know, hindu kings had been fighting each other for as long as known history but they started using desperate measures like `johar` -mass killings of their wives- only against muslim invaders.

The point I was making was that the decision to convert was probably taken on a collective basis, in a panchayat or a biradari. The whole biradari converting at the same time had another advantage, it made any potential excommunication by the hindu society meaningless.

stuka:
Jaziya was imposed by sultans who preceded mughals. History records that Akbar abolished jaziya, which means that it was prevalent until then.

The discussion on this forum is stimulating and well versed. I missed it. My comments to earlier posts.

NHK is right in saying rice were for sick people or special days (mithay chaul). We never ate rice. I get uncomfortable if I eat them. Meat was a luxury only 3 decades back. Usually the grooms` party demanded there should be meat at the wedding. And, people fought over it. Whenver I ate at Pakis` homes, even the ``vegeterian`` dishes had meat. Maybe it is a US Paki thing.

Dullah, even thought Bhatti could be an engineer, doctor or a mechanic, mostly a Bhatti would prefer a Bhatti relative, a Jat would prefer a Jat and that too from a particular subcaste.

People change with times, and religion is not the most important influence. Jains and Brahmins these days eat beef, and muslims drink, sikhs smoke. It is not uncommon.

It is about time these superficial `taboos` are wiped out.

Stuka #153: ``That is coz Punjabis are lukhas who will take Aaa Daab as an invitation to dabao when said by a woman. ;)``

Yes. This is correct. Although, I believe it was Ghalib who said:

``Roz jhuk kay kehti hai, ``Chacha Aadaab``....
Jiss din dabaa diyay, pachtayee gee``

At the same time, the latest Indian hit movie, Veer-Zara, shows a Lahore of 1980s where everyone wears long sherwanis and says Aadaab. Looks more like the Lucknow (?) of 1880s. How many people in Lahore have you seen like that? That too, in their 20s and 30s.

It is beyond me, why and how someone in India`s movie industry could know so little about Lahore. Considering the fact that a huge chunk of India`s movie industry traces their family roots back to Pakistan. Sunil Dutt was born in Jehlum. Dev Anand went to GC Lahore etc.

What is worse is that Yash Chopra, the director of Veer-Zara was born and brought up in Lahore, himself!!

But what is even more odd is that so many Indians seem to now think that Lahore is actually like that. That is not to suggest that it was shown in a demeaning manner. It wasn`t. But it certainly wasn`t shown in any manner close to what it actually is..........

Why?

Regarding Pakis` denial of Hindu roots. I went to College with a Pakistani (was my room mate too). His last name was clearly Hindu (simmilar to Salim`s). He absolutely refused to admit - though he knew in the back of his mind of his Hindu ancestory. He called himself a ``Mughal``. And was happy to declare that ``his ancestors`` beat up Indians. Of course he looked like an ``Indian``. When the first gulf war began, all of sudden, he lost his Mughal/Paki pride and told everyone that he was a Mexican. He did not have any answers when I questioned his logic and never again discussed these controversial topics with me.

HP, Stuka:

I used to make the mistake of saying ``Adaab Arz`` to my Pakistani friends until I discovered ``reality``. These days, even Indian Muslims have stopped saying ``Adaab``.
Pity! because it`s such a beautiful greeting!

Back to parsees, what`s the parsee greeting?

Re: # 157
Tahmed32. Thanks for the research. I recently found out that the band ``Queen`` are making a comeback with a new lead singer Paul Rogers. I know for sure that they are going to perform in Rotterdam (The Netherlands) in April.

rkhan sahib: here is google on freddy mercury

Born 5th. September, 1946, Zanzibar, Africa; died 24th. November, 1991, in Kensington, London.
British pop and rock singer and song writer.

His orginal name was Farok Bulsara. (Not Farookh or Farookah as is given in some biographies.) His mother was Jer Bulsara.

His family were Zoroastrian Parsees who were essentially Indian, although they were of Persian extraction if their ethnic origin were taken back to the nineth century. The name Bulsara was from the town of Bulsar in north Bombay.

His father was a government accountant.

He was born in the British colony of Zanzibar in Africa, but his family moved to Bombay where he attended school. At school he adopted the name Freddie. The family settled in England in 1959.

He joined the band Sour Milk Sea and then moved

First of all, Nazar Saheb congratulations on writing an excellent article about Zoroastrianism. It was refreshing change from you after a lot of PIA and Migs. Though I enjoy those as well.

A lot has already been discussed about religions below. But it seems that people have lost track of the original subject in discussion. Maybe my post will try and bring people back to the original point of discussion.

Was Freddy Mercury a Zoroastrian? I remember watching a documentary on Zoroastrianism on Television where a prosperous Zoroastrian businessman in India was narrating all notable achievements of Zoroastrians. I distinctly remember he mentioned that Freddy Mercury was a Parsi. I have also heard (not in that program though) that his original name was Fareed Para. Maybe its correct or just another theory like Shakespeare being an Arab with the name Shekh Zubair.

Would anyone through light on this?

Raheel

First of all, Nazar Saheb congratulations on writing an excellent article about Zoroastrianism. It was refreshing change from you after a lot of PIA and Migs. Though I enjoy those as well.

A lot has already been discussed about religions below. But it seems that people have lost track of the original subject in discussion. Maybe my post will try and bring people back to the original point of discussion.

Was Freddy Mercury a Zoroastrian? I remember watching a documentary on Zoroastrianism on Television where a prosperous Zoroastrian businessman in India was narrating all notable achievements of Zoroastrians. I distinctly remember he mentioned that Freddy Mercury was a Parsi. I have also heard (not in that program though) that his original name was Fareed Para. Maybe its correct or just another theory like Shakespeare being an Arab with the name Shekh Zubair.

Would anyone through light on this?

Raheel

``The same principle was applied to Hindus throughout one thousand years of Muslim rule, until Aurangzeb Alamgir imposed Jizyah tax upon Hindus when they revolted in certain areas as per edict in Repentance ``

I just read this. Is it true that no Muslim leader imposed Jaziya on Hindus till Aurangzeb? Can this be verified?

if you say “Adaab” in Pakistan, people would think you are crazy

That is coz Punjabis are lukhas who will take Aaa Daab as an invitation to dabao when said by a woman. ;)

Romair,

Both Humsab and dullabhatti are correct. Many Pakistanis are not aware of or simply refuse to believe their Hindu roots. Barring a few families in Sindh and about 5% who can claim some parts of their bodies of Iran or central Asian and Arabic origin or what not, most of us Indians and Pakistani have similar roots.
I have known some people who were astonished when I said that their ancestors were Hindu because they shared their family name with Hindus. Most immigrants from India, are just too adamant that they are direct descendent of the prophet or his Shahaba!
You will not find a single urdu speaking Shia who would admit some Hindu roots.
Some Sindhi last names that are common in both Hindus or Muslims of Sindh: Ursani, Pandihani, Dosani, etc. etc.
In sindh the last name ``Sheikh`` is a give away about ones Hindu roots. I think that is true in Bengal also. So Sheikh Mujib had Hindu roots. (thats why he broke up pakistan. Jamaat Islami was right after all :)

Pakistani and Indians have cultural similarities but there are many differences too.
In India, most Muslims would use “Adaab” for greetings to Hindus or even within themselves; but if you say “Adaab” in Pakistan, people would think you are crazy.

In all provinces in Pakistan, people have local customs for greeting like in Sindh if you are an elder, people may touch your feet for respect. The words for greetings are not assalam alaikum but “Bhalli karay Aiya!”.
Baloch, Pathan, and Punjabi as you know it have different words to greet people. In Sindh recently under Urdu Speaking influence, some Sindhis have begun to use Asslam alaikum.

Indian and Pakistani differences are similar to white folks in Europe or even in the US. Most of them come from the same stock and they share many other cultural traits. (One similarity: Their foods suck! except French food though!) Still they are citizens of different countries with different political aspirations.

Btw, Sounds like you are from Kahuta.

romair ji

What you are saying may be partially true in the case of rajputs converts. I once met a pakistani panjabi Jatt whose surname is a very common surname in India. Perhaps I look like a perfect idiot and thats why he told me how is father`s ancestor came with mughals etc. I pointedly addressed him using his surname (Mr.

---

) but he was not ready to take the hint that his surname is sure giveaway. I kept smiling and listening. once I met a person with khatri surname and he was also narrating his family history on similar lines. Let me state it here again that neither jatt not khatri are by any means lower castes in castes hierarchy. Even if you ignore these personal experiences, many columnists in Pakistani newspapers have confirmed this.

Regards

Dost Mitter ji

Indians do accept the fact that mass conversions may have occurred but not voluntarly on large scale. Many times it may have happened to be on the right side of ruler or to get out of financial misery and even finding solace spiritually. Indian history written by communists have glossed over many uncomfortable issue to ensure peace and harmony and there is nothing wrong with that either.

A few years back when Bosnia conflict was on I read a few articles how the population in this area became muslim. When that land was conquered by the muslims then land automatically comes into the possession of conquerors. If locals conquered want their land back then they have to convert. This leaves very little choice to people whose means of livelihood is land. So, they are expected to queue on their own to convert. This is what happened wherever Islamic imperialists went. I am confident that same phenomenon happened in India also and that explain coversion of jatts in Punjab.

This belief was further strengthened when a few months back in a programme on QTv, a Maulana was explaining the meaning of Ushar and another similar term. As per Islamic rules and regulation, when muslims conquer another country then land possessed by Kafirs is automatically confiscated. If Kafir becomes muslim before getting defeated then his land is returned and if he does later then again land is returned but he has to pay some sort of tax which is perhaps called Ushar or some other word.

In such circumstances people particularly farming community did not have much chance or hope without conversion. I am sure people must have fought valianty to retain their identity and belief but economic compulsions may have made them to accept reality. Lower castes of course had every genuine reason to convert but even they have not converted en masse.

Regards

BTW I have noticed your interest lately in Bulleh Shah and other Punjabi poetry...may be we can some day enjoy buffet at Brar`s in Brampton.:-)

Romair, believe me I did not intentionally run into people who don`t use their last names...in fact I probably intentionally ran into people had highest chance to use such name:-). ..anyway majority of Pakistanis shun away from such names and prefer some Arabi word instead. That can be observed from any list of Pakistani names from bhangis to rocket scientists.:-)

Indian (or hindu if you will) ``culture`` comprises of rites or samskaras. I dont recall precisely, but there are 12 some major rites, pretty much followed all over india. birth, naming, ear-piercing, first-food, school-entrance, sacred thread, coming-of-age (for women), marriage (sorry, no divorce), getting a male great-grandson, death-mourning are some which come to my mind. These samskaras are Vedic .. they trace back to vedic times.

an imported cultural rite is that of circumcision.

Re:Romair#141

Indian public opinion is not as fickle as you imagine. When it has been against Pakistan (mostly during the nineties), it has always been targeted at the Pakistani government and establishment. Two things happened during the nineties. First was the jihadi policies pursued in Kashmir, where the indigenous struggle got corrupted by the Pakistani strategy of bleeding India using jihad. Second was the rise of BJP and hindu nationalism as a political force. It is a coincidence that both happened at the same time. Even then, the hatred has been against the Pakistani government and the establishment. At the people level, there has always been goodwill.

Now that we see that the jihad is practically over and that the BJP has been sidelined, the natural goodwill is surfacing again. We do need more and more people to people contacts to build up on it.

Further to #144 I mean - are you talking values, language, modes of production (a la Marx), religion, physical surroundings (urban, rural, wealthy, poor). One needs to be very specific if one is to compare.

To my mind the only significant aspect of culture is values. Everything else is frivilous and subject to change anyway over time.

Romair #143,
Ofcourse, every region of India has variations in its cultural aspects. But urban India is moving towards a common culture, largely because every city is now heterogenous and ofcourse intermarraige. Still things vary a bit from place to place but not by much. India is moving towards a single culture, and I would expect the same in Pakistan.

Romair: What is culture?

dost-mittar #139: I actually don`t know how the Hindus arrived or orginated in India. If they were the indigenous people, as you say, then it is their land from origination. Hence they did not convert nor replace anyone.........Everyone thus coming into their land, militarily, would be an invader, including, everyone from Mohd. Bin Qasim, onwards.........

vivek #``What do you think of Pakistani culture - is it different from India i.e a combo of central asian and india ?(and thus not the same as Indian) or is it the same as India`s culture?``

From whatever I have seen, I don`t think there is, as such, a Pakistani culture. There is a Punjabi/Kashmiri culture, Baluchi culture, Sindhi culture, Pathan culture and Muhajir culture.

The combination of this is some kind of a Pakistani culture. The only addition Pakistan has made to it, is a single language and pre-dominantly a single religion.

At the same, it would be hard for me to believe that there is a single Indian culture either. Infact, there are probably far more Indian cultures. And the common factor across these Indian cultures is also a majority common religion (even though India is constitutinally a secular country).

My guess is, and this is what I have seen also, the Punjabi, ``culture`` amongst Indians and Pakistanis has more in common with each other, than with Tamil and Baluchi areas etc., respectively. Amongst other things, the languages are the same, across the borders.....I suppose the same would be true for Muhajirs and Sindhis........and any other area with a common history........

dullahbhatti #140: ``Lately I am seeing more and more Pakistanis paying attention to this part of their heritage and appending these names with them...even younger participants on internet are getting aware of it.........I think Pakistanis have been wrongly associating these names with Caste system.......I see a welcome change in Pakistani society in this respect.``

I am not sure how many Pakistanis actually understand, which caste their names have originated from, barring a few prominent names. I certainly did not know...........

At the same time, Pakistanis have been using these same last names for ages. As I said, it is quite common. All my cousins, aunts, nephews, fifth and tenth cousins have my last name. Which is a Hindu name, apprently. If you are interested in meeting Pakistanis with such names, do visit my village. I can introduce you to around 1000 people with that last name. The whole village has the same last name. And they have had it for generations.........

I don`t know which one of the Pakistani Hindu last names belongs historically to lower castes. So I cannot say with certainity if any of them changed it. But my guess is that the reason you haven`t noticed Pakistani with their historical Hindu last names is not because they do not exist in large numbers. It is because you aren`t familiar with the number of people who have such names.........,i.e. it is not a recent phenomenon........

amit#137: ``The Indian mindset about Pakistan has swung from one extreme to another and is now tyring to settle down into a pragmatic middle ground.``

You are generally correct. With one exception, in my opinion. And that is the point I have been trying to make here:

The fact that Indian opinions are fluctuating does not mean that the Pakistanis are fluctuating. Pakistanis have generally been the same all along. They were the same, when they were shown as villians in Pukar, Mission Kashmir etc. two years ago, and they are the same even though they are shown as friends in Veer-Zara today. However, Indian opinion keeps fluctuating based on the latest movie or the latest statement from the Indian govt. (or the Pakistan govt.).

This is what I am against. I think Indians need to get to know the real situation and views of Pakistan. And not base their view on the latest Sunny Deol flavor of the month thriller. The reason Indians were overwhelmed during the cricket series is not because Pakistanis were overly nice. They were overwhelmed because they had come in with strange ridiculous fears about Pakistanis dangling from trees trying to kill them. So even if a Pakistani ended up being a normal guy, and said, ``Hello,`` Indians were pleased.

I am saying this as someone who has been interacting, at all levels (family, social, professional) with Indians for over ten years now. 30-60% of my daily professional interaction is with Indians, including my daily lunch. And around 20% of my family social interaction is with Indians.

The kinds of questions I am asked about Pakistan sometimes leave, both me and my wife, amazed (as do some of the comments on this site). The questions seem to originate directly from the movies about Pakistan, shown in India. At the moment, the trend amongst our Indian friends is to say, ``Aadaab,`` since that is what is (incorrectly) shown in Veer-Zara`s Lahore. If my wife doesn`t show up at a party, half the Indians politely ask me if she is wearing a hijab and observing purdah at home. The moment they see anything religous in my house, they assume I must be a maulvi.

One of my close friends was worried sick that the Indian cricket team would be killed in Pakistan. He was thinking of going, but he was afraid of the treatment he would get in Pakistan. I was unable to convince him that nobody in Pakistan would do anything to him nor to the cricket team.

But most of all, all the hundreds of conversations I have had with Indian colleagues, have all been one-sided. My discussing India with them. Not a single one of them can discuss Pakistan with me for more than two minutes. They want to, but they have no idea what the hell happens in Pakistan (and they are too polite to mention anything negative, which is what they have mostly heard in India).

I should be visiting India sometime soon. I have never been there before. But I can say with a lot of surity that I don`t think anyone is going to try to kill me there. Nor will I be overwhelmed if someone says, ``hello`` to me. I think my picture of India, though not completely accurate, would be far more realistic than the average Indian`s perception of Pakistan........

This is the disconnect. And at the expense of dost-mittar, once again passing a declaration that I am degenerating everything to India/Pak contests, I am merely trying to point out that Indians should not make any final judgements about Pakistan, until they are quite sure they really know what is going on there.

It is not a crime to be misinformed about a place. It is also not a crime to be un-informed about a place. But I do think it is somewhat of a crime to have very strong and conclusive opinions about a people and a place, when one is actully quite un-informed about it..........

P.S. This is not to say that Pakistanis are not misinformed about India also. They are as well.........

Romair, about 15 years ago when I first came in contact with Pakistanis and started knowing about Punjabis particularly, in real life I did not come accross any Pakistani Punjabis who would use his native last name like Sethi, Bhullar, Dhillon etc. for years....many of them knew their native family names would often say, that their family is also xyz but no one uses that name now...When I started reading Pakistani newspapers then I started coming accross these names used by some prominent Pakistanis also. Lately I am seeing more and more Pakistanis paying attention to this part of their heritage and appending these names with them...even younger participants on internet are getting aware of it.

I think Pakistanis have been wrongly associating these names with Caste system. It is true that every sirname/familyname falls to some caste category in Hindu varun system but these familynames are not castes themselves. They are family names heritage just like Goldstein, Shroeder, Berger etc...if one is knowledge about it one can guess where are what background the person is but that does not acertain what the person is. e.g. a Bhatti could be a Sikh, Hindu or Muslim...further he could be a farmer, engineer, driver etc...all Bhatti tells is his ancestors were Rajputs and lvied somewhere in west Punjabi for centuries.

I see a welcome change in Pakistani society in this respect.

Romair:

``And before Hinduism arrived in India, there must have been some population of other believers, who were exterminated and/or converted. No one talks about them?``

Where did Hindus come from? I am not aware of any other place in the world where Hinduism is known to have existed.

You may be referring to the Aryan invasion theory, which was invented/postulated by european orientalists in the 19th century and held sway over Indian intellectuals for more than a century. This is now being hotly contested by a new generation of historians. From what I have seen, both sides are using arguments which are based on tenuous architectural and linguistic evidence and the jury is still out on whether Aryans came from outside or were indigenous to India. What is however uncontested is that Aryan is an indigenous (sanskrit) word which means nobility and not a racist term.

Whether Aryans came from outside or not, Hindus of whatever caste do not trace their origin to anywhere but India. And if Aryans did come from outside, the religion they settled for was a result of combining beliefs of earlier inhabitants with theirs.

Even if Aryans did not come from outside, there were several other ethnic groups - greeks, huns, parthias and others - who did come to India from outside. They did not exterminate or convert the locals to their faiths. Most probably, their faiths merged seamlessly into the commonwealth of religions that hinduism is. The same did not happen with Islam since it is prosleytising, uncompromising in its belief system, more than a faith and a complete way of life with its own legal system. If Islam had been even a little bit compromising, Hindus would have made it their own religion, adding Muhammad to its endless list of avtars. Indeed, when it did become a little less rigid during Akbar`s time, the result was sufis whose mazars are lit by `deevas` like in a hindu temple. The irony is that it is Hindus who now worship these muslim sufis, such as Kabir and Farid whose compositions are sung as bhajans in the Hindu temples while the Muslims have practically abandoned them as `shirk`. [the most recent example is that of the original Sai Baba of Shirdi]

Romair,
What do you think of Pakistani culture - is it different from India i.e a combo of central asian and india ?(and thus not the same as Indian) or is it the same as India`s culture?

Romair,

The Indian mindset about Pakistan has swung from one extreme to another and is now tyring to settle down into a pragmatic middle ground. In the initial years after 1947, the Indian Govt recognized Pakistan, but the people did not think that Pakistanis were different people. After all we had lived in the same place under different political rulers for centuries and we had all the similarities that you have identified. Also the refugees to India had memories of both good and bad times in Pakistan. However, as time passed by and there was an iron curtain on contact, the opinion swung to the other extreme as people started thinking of Pakistan as a land of junior Ghaznavis/Ghauris chomping at the bit to finish off India. This feeling was reinforced during the BJP rule and the heights of jihadi warfare in Kashmir. Some of the yonger interactors on Chowk follow this line of thinking.

As relations have thawed in the past few years, the pendulum is swinging more to the middle. You are well aware of how amazed Indians have been after visiting Pakistan and being overwhelmed by the positive reception. Also with Internet and dish satellite, people are getting a chance to learn about the other side. So now the question is how to make sense of this situation? Do we focus on similarities? If we do so in a big way, we may hurt the nationalist feelings of Pakistanis who still suspect India of trying to undo partition. Do we focus on differences? If we do that, we may look like communalists who hate muslims. How do we find a middle ground, a nuanced position, where we focus on similarities while acknowledging the differences? How to control how much emphasis should be placed on each, without stepping on any toes? These are the issues that Indian people and even the Government is trying to figure out with respect to Pakistan.

This is also a reason that you do not see rapid progress in talks on sensitive topics or the willingness to make large compromises, because Indians are still not sure what exactly should be the nature of our relationship with Pakistanis. As a result they are playing safe and taking it slow. Just take it one day at a time, as we do a tango with the other side and see where it goes.

Amit/Dost-mittar/humsab: `` Actually, this is what Indians feel and want that converted people should accept and consider it an honour. It is only Pakistanis (majority) who till recently was not ready to accept this reality and have always been looking for an Arab ancecsor.``

As stated before, I don`t agree with this. And I think the reason many Indians feel this way is because they don`t have exposure to the real Pakistan.

Most Pakistanis are not looking for Arabic ancestors. Why would they be? Infact, most Pakistanis have too many day to day problems to even worry about history. As do most people in most poor countries. Looking for ancestors is the least of their worries.

A point that could be considered valid would be Pakistanis looking for Persian, Central Asian Muslim etc. ancestors. One may be able to buy that argument. But why in the world, and how, could they look for Arabic ancestors?

There is a difference between looking for religious history, or even for political motivation, from the home of Islam in Arabia, and looking for your family tree from Arabia. If Pakistanis were looking to Arabia for their family tree, as I have stated many times before, why in the world would they not change their last names from Gill, Warriach, Raja, Bhutto, Talpur etc. to bin-Hussain, Abu-Omer, Umm-Kulsum etc.? And why wouldn`t they start wearing thobs and the Arabic headgear, and start speaking Arabic?

Having said that, many Pakistanis do interpret historical events differently, from Hindus, primarily due to their religious difference. Many Pakistanis consider Ghaznavi etc. a conqueror and a hero. And not as someone who many have killed their own ancestors. Many consider the Mughals to be great, while many Hindus may not. etc. etc.

This is obviously a question of giving your religon or your culture more importance, over the each other. I think everyone cheers for one over the other, on different occassions. For example, there must have been Hindu kings killing each other, before the Muslims arrived. Rana Sanga et al (perhaps my own ancestors) are given hero-like status amongst various Indians for fighting off invaders. However, one rarely hears any comments on Sanga et. al, or their ancestors, subjugating and killing Hindus or different ethnicities. They must have done that, much like Ghauri and Ghaznavi fought and killed Muslim chiefs also.

And before Hinduism arrived in India, there must have been some population of other believers, who were exterminated and/or converted. No one talks about them?

I think people are, thus, confusing cheering for various historical figures, differently, based on their religion, with actually attaching one`s own family tree to those people. Many Pakistanis may cheer for Mohd Bin Qasim (probably most do), but how many actually say they are descendants of the Arabs who came in with Mohd Bin Qasim? Not too many......

Re: # 132

Amit,

What happened? Let`s have good relations with Pakistan, let`s celebrate the common culture and all that. But why aspersions on the character of a whole community? What gives?

``When Jaipal lost, his son Anand Pal regrouped.`` Yes! And you forgot to mention that he lit a funeral pyre after his defeat. You didn`t mention that there was a Jauhar in Ranthambhor after Rajputs lost to Khilji. You also overlooked that Rana Pratap ate leaves but did not compromise his honour. Heck, even Rana Sanga died fighting to Baber in Khanwa.

It is OK to be so-called lower caste and then convert citing exploitation and inequality. It is fine to be a descendant of Turk, Afghan and Arab, and flaunt Abdali as a part of your name. But, it is demeaning to call someone Rajput and Afzal Khan in the same vein. That wouldn`t leave much wriggling space, would it?

In the name of Holy Spirit, get real :-)

Humsab:
Thanks! This is why I left the caveat of `if any`.

Re. amit`s remark, I think it is valid. We hindu-sikhs (not all Indians) do not readily acknowledge that there may have been voluntary mass conversions also to islam. But since the hindu society ostracised them or they rejected the hindu society or both, all links were broken. Unfortunately, it was not a friendly `divorce`.

Dost Mitter ji

` There are hardly, if any, arrain, khokhars ou janjuas among hindus or sikhs. What happened?`

There are janjuas in punjab mainly among sikhs. I know atleast one Janjua who was commissioner jalandhar divison two decades ago and retired now. There are khokhars also but may be using some other word for surname.

Regards


amit ji

`I think we Indians should recognize and acknowledge this aspect of history, not as a communal issue, but rather as a way for us to recognize that Pakistanis are local people who have changed religions but have strong connections with us.`

We Indians do accept it. Actually, this is what Indians feel and want that converted people should accept and consider it an honour. It is only Pakistanis (majority) who till recently was not ready to accept this reality and have always been looking for an Arab ancecsor. I have experienced quite a few howlers from some Pakistani aquaintances in this regard. At that time, one just smile and prefers not to argue.

Regards

Re:dost-mittar #114

You wrote - ``These fierce rajputs, who were at the forefront of fighting invaders, eventually adopted the policy of ``if you cant lick `em, join `em``.``

This is an important fact about Pakistan that is totally overlooked in India. I wonder why we downplay the efforts of the ancestors of Pakistanis to fight against invaders, as compared to Rana Pratap or Shivaji? Take the Khokhars for example. They were fierce fighters who gave a tough time to Ghaznavi, Ghauri et al. In fact, it is said that Ghauri was actually assasinated by Khokhar tribesmen after his conquest over Prithiviraj Chauhan.

Similarly the ancestors of the present day Janjuas were the Hindushahi Rajputs who ruled over Kabul and Peshawar. When Ghaznavi first attacked India, he faced Raja Jaipal, who was the Hindushai ruler of Kabul. When Jaipal lost, his son Anand Pal regrouped. In fact, he put together a Rajput confederacy of Rajput tribes to fight against Ghaznavi. There was a huge war at Peshawar, in which the Khokhars fought valiantly on behalf of the confederacy against Ghaznavi. Although Ghaznavi won the conflict in the end, it was after a really tough fight.

I think we Indians should recognize and acknowledge this aspect of history, not as a communal issue, but rather as a way for us to recognize that Pakistanis are local people who have changed religions but have strong connections with us.

Romair#123

Yaar, what do you want from us Indians? For 60 years, you guys have been arguing that you are different :-) Now that we all signed off on that and want our gas pipelines and visas to visit Lahore, you turn the tables and suggest that we are all the same :-). If we agree with you now, your guys will turn around and say - there, the Indians are trying to create Akhand Bharat again. I guess, we can never make you happy :-)

From the World of the Wise Lord to the Frying Pan of the Tasty Lard. Chowk meanderings zindabad. ;-)

A few Facts of Life:-

a) Any food double or triple fried in animal fat / lard / tallow tastes far better than the same food fried in vegetable oils. Sea animal based oils are distinctive, expensive and an acquired taste.

b) The cheapest of all animal fats is out of pork. It also happens to ``retain`` taste better. Yum yum to all that Chinese food. What lachak to the tandoori stuff if lightly rinsed in pork fat first.

c) The best Pakistani food, to my experience, is that which has been cooked in butter or ghee in front of you or at home. Otherwise it tends to be cooked in animal fat of any origin.

d) Yes, food is now different in Indian Punjab from Pakistani Punjab. Even the home and street food is different. The tadkaas taste different. The oils being used are very different. Most of all, the add-ons are different, with the way the tea/coffee tastes and the ease of availability of liquor being only two parameters.

e) And finally, healthy eating aka salute to full grain breads and olive oil, is now catching on in lower middle class homes too, in India. Even with street food, you can now get the humble pao bhaajee done in front of you on pavement stalls with brown bread and chilli-flavoured olive oil.

Dost-Mitter:
I have a personal experience of Pakistani approach and Indian approach to organizing lunch. This start up that I was involved a couple of years ago, its President was a completely liberal Pakistani (to top it, his mother was a Christian and the father was a Muslim). The people working in this start up were mainly Indians - half North and half South Indians. The President decided to organize the lunch himself, and really got some of the finest cousine for the lunch, except for two smaller vegetarian dishes all the rest were non-vegetarian dishes. Both vegetarians and non vegetarins took vegetarian dishes, while only non-vegetarians took non-vegetarian food. Result was quite obvious. The president commented that this was the party he organized that such thing happened, among the Pakistanis, the situation would be reversed, vegetarian dishes would be left for wanting.

Anil

Romair#123:
I agree with most of this post and have, in fact, been saying much the same things at chowk over the years.

ali_1:

Actually, I am not sure if the vanaspati/dalda used in India is free of that tallow either. I didn`t eat any samosas in Pakistan so I can`t say how it tastes. But the Indian visitor to Lahore is more likely to see non-vegetarian samosas anyway. Personally, I have no problem with either.

This reminds me of a small moral dilemma I faced during my student days in Wisconsin when an Afghan student living in the same residence who did not eat pork, loved jello and I wondered whether or not I should tell him how jelllo was made.

In today`s world it is impossible for anyone to observe any dietary restrictions strictly unless one prepares everything from first ingredients and even then one cannot be certain.

dost mittar sahib,

.... have you noticed that an aloo samosa in Lahore tastes much better than any Indian aloo samosa? vegetarian travellers to Pakistan must be warned.... all low cost food in Pakistan is fried in/prepared with lard/tallow.....

Romair:

Are you saying that the Two-Nation theory was flawed?

Romair #123,
I regularly talk with people from India`s neighbouring countries, and I think the similarities between India-Pak is overstated. The average Nepali or Sri Lankan knows a lot about India because more often than not he has lived in India for some time. Add to the fact the most tourists in Nepal come from India. Bangladeshis know a lot about India, infact they often know more about India`s political structure as well as society than Pakistanis primarily because Pakistanis have not lived in India. But Pakistanis share other things with Indians. The point is its unfair to other neighbours of India to say that it has more in common with Pakistan. I think it would also be unfair to Afghans who have a lot in common with Pakistanis.

dost-mittar #120: ``Their eating habits, music, architecture and script, are all poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dresses they wear are entirely different.``

I think the official line of the govt. has been what you have suggested, i.e. two nations, etc. etc., with different cultures, food and all that. But I don`t think it has practically worked like that, in real life. They are two nations, no doubt, but with a large amount of similarities.........

I have never been to India, so I cannot comment on what goes on there, as far as food, culture etc. However, I know closely a lot of Indians, outside India. So my comments are based on that. In addition, I have read quite a bit about India (though reading about another country, specifically India and Pakistan, can lead to more misinformation than actual information).

And I don`t know how everything evolved, from the times that Hindus started converting, and were converted, to Islam, till Pakistan was formed. But based on the above, we can do a comparison of where everthing has ended up as of present day, in terms of clothes, food, culture etc.

1. Eating habits: These seem to only be different along the vegetarian/non-vegetarian lines. However, the food, at least from North India, both vegetarian/non-vegetarian, seems nearly identicalto Pakistani food, based on what I have seen in North America and England. Is the food different in India?

2. Music: Music is identical. Almost 100% identical.

3. Languages: Languages are the same. I speak Punjabi with Indian Punjabis, and we have no difficulty communicating. I speak Urdu with Indians speaking Hindi, and we have no difficulty communicating...........There is no Muslim langauge or a Hindu language, as such. Urdu is just the national language of Pakistan, for official reasons. Not for religious reasons.......

5. Architecture: Architecture is different. At least, in the historic sense. And for large structures. But not for smaller ones (?) I assume the rich Muslim guy built his house in the same way as the rich Hindu guy. And the poor Muslim villager still builds his hut in the same was as a poor Hindu villager.

5. Script: Script is different.

6. Dress: Is the dress different? Is there a Hindu dress and a Muslim dress. The dresses seem to be the same, with some emphasis on what are national dresses. It is nearly impossible for me to tell the difference between a Sikh female and a Pakistani Punjabi Muslim female. They look and dress identically.

7. Social order: The social order that has been developed is, to some extent, different. Because the core religioin of two countries is different. And religion does have some impact on the social order. But even then the social order is not too different. Both countries are far more conservative than Western countries. There is a strong family order built on a hierarchy based on age. There is an official caste hierarchy in India and an unofficial one in Pakistan. The relationships between husbands and wives are similar. Etc. etc.

Let me provide you with one final and authoritative test - Not from opinions in a book, but a real-life test:

Do you feel more comfortable discussing a subject with a South Asian Muslim than with a European? If you walk into a group of Nepalase, Sri Lankans, Brits and Pakistanis, who can you talk to in a more comfortable manner? Do the marraiges in Pakistan seem similar to Indian marriages or do they seem similar to Arabic marriages? Does Pakistani food look like Muslim Turkey`s food or North Indian food? Do Indonesians watch Indian movies for the latest fashions, or do Pakistanis watch them for that? Does the Sardarji in my office hang around with me, during lunch, or does he hang around with the Tamil speaking South Indian or the Sinhalese speaking Sri Lankan? Does the Indian guy from Delhi share his dirty jokes in Hindi with me, or with the Hindu guys from Khatmandu and Jaffna?

And most of all, do you spend time on Chowk? Is it because you want to meet people with different cultures, habits etc. or is it because the habits etc. seem to be the same? The fact that you and I are having this discussion is enough of a proof of the commonality........and its recognition.........

Tahmed32 # 121, Dost # 120, Romair

Food of Punjabis

I agree with Tehmed & Dost.

Romair, you are talking about a small minority of rich Punjabi`s. Majority of village folks, constituting about 70% of population, lived on Peelo, Daley, Bajra and Makkei just 3 generations back. Cattle was the life line for milk & Lassi. When an old animal fell sick, it was quickly slaughtered. That day, its owner distributed a bit of meat to the entire village and they ate meat. I have seen this in my childhood.

As a child, I have also seen that rice & tea was given to only sick people in the village.

All these Nakhras of Pulao, Biryani, Tikkas, hunter beef etc etc came to the most of Punjab right during the time of our generation.

All karara dishes came from Indian migrants to Punjab. Please remember, most of Pakistani Punjab was jungles just 3 generations back when the British brought canals.

So we have entered from pastoral life to the electronic age extremely rapidly - but the villages are still way back in time.

nhk

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.

Re: # 104

Of names: One day I called out `Parvez`, the name of my uniformed
peon. He came and told me that he had Changed his name to `Mehboob` and requested that he should be called by that name in future. I asked him why he changed his name. He told me that the Imam of the masjid had told him that Pervez was an anti-Islamic name as a persian monarch of this name had insulted the prophet. So,Sir, I have changed my name to `Mehboob`.

In fact, names are neither Islamic or un-Islamic. The name of the so called `Abujehl` was also Farooq bin Hisham and that of the second kalif `Farooq bin Khitab`. No Arab changed his name on conversion to Islam. Only non-Arabs do that like those of Muslims of earstwhile Russian states who changed their names by adding `ove`, like Karimove. I know some Paky Muslims who wrote their names with a suffix of `Shaw` during the British Raj changed it to `Shah` after independence. This is shere slavishness. Self respect lies in resprcting our indigenous culture, perhaps.

Why didn`t Muslims take Hindu first names?

This is something I have always wondered about. The names, currently known as Islamic names, are actually Arabic names. They are common amongst Arab Christians, Muslims Jews(?) etc. Muhammad never changed his name after founding Islam. Neither did any of his colleagues. In fact, going by statistics, there must have been quite a few Muhammads, Hussains etc. among the pagan Meccans, when the Muslim armies marched in victoriously. It is common to find Christian Arabs, today, named Hussain, Qasim etc.

When Islam spread to Iran, the converted Muslims, and perhaps even the invading Muslims (?) ended up with Persian/Zorastarian(?) names. Pervez is a common name in Pakistan, amongst Muslims. As is Behram. As is Pasha. Some of these are names amongst Parsis also. In fact, Arabic doesn`t even have the alphabet, ``P,`` hence any Muslim name with a P in it, would have to be non-Arabic. As would names with, ``Ch`` sound, since Arabic does not have the alphabet, ``Chay`` either.

Hoshyar, Babak, Behadur, Bahbud, Shahrukh, Sheherzad etc. are all Parsi first names, and Muslim first names. Arzu, Chaman, Pari, Parveen, Tehmina etc. are all Parsi female first names, as well as Muslim female first names.

As Islam spread eastwards, it seems to have kept the local names, and added them to its vocabulary. In fact, there is no such thing as an Islamic or Muslim name. It is all the local names of the people who accepted Islam.

However, this seems to have stopped when Islam reached the Indus and Ganga, as far as first names go. While it remained true for last names. I have an Arabic first name, and a Hindu last name. Why isn`t my name Manoj Raja, when it could very easily have been Pervez Hamadani (neither of which is Arabic) had I been Irani? A Parsi person could be named Pervez Hamadani also.........

Barring a few exceptions, every name amongst South Asian Muslims - be they in Pakistan or India - is either completely from a non-local language, or is like mine, i.e. first name non-local plus local last name.

I wonder why?

Experience Islam Week 2005 in Cambridge



CAMBRIDGE - Human rights, the ethics of warfare and the growing numbers of Britons choosing to become Muslim are among the fascinating issues being explored in a series of public lectures and other events for Experience Islam Week 2005, which runs until 11 February.


Academics, leading Muslim thinkers and the former Sunday Express journalist Yvonne Ridley, who was captured by the Taleban in 2001 and has since converted to Islam, will be delivering the talks.

The week`s highlight will be the LAYLA cultural evening on Thursday (10 February), a celebration of creative work inspired by Islam, with live music, martial arts, poetry, Islamic art, a Moroccan-style souk market, henna tattooing and food.

Experience Islam Week, which started on Saturday (5 February), has been organised by the University of Cambridge Islamic Society so that people can learn more about what Islam stands for.

The organisers said: ``Islam Awareness Week is an annual national event, renamed Experience Islam Week with the aim of tailoring it to suit the needs of Cambridge`s students, academics and townspeople. It has been a pleasure organising the week and we hope you enjoy and gain from it.``

The remaining Experience Islam Week events are:

Tuesday, 8 February

My Journey to Islam
Cambridge students who have converted to Islam share their stories
1.05pm; Ramsden Room, St Catharine`s College (see map). Lunch provided

Islam and the World Religions
Speaker: Timothy Winter, Faculty of Divinity
6.45pm; Room LG19, Law Faculty, Sidgwick Site (see map)

Wednesday, 9 February

Islam and the Ethics of Warfare (in association with Amnesty International)
Speaker: Timothy Winter, Faculty of Divinity
1.05pm; Ramsden Room, St Catharine`s College. Lunch provided

Average Joe, Average Mo
Revealing the reality behind Britain`s 1.8 million Muslims
Speaker: Sarah Joseph, Islamic Society of Britain
6.45pm; Room LG19, Law Faculty, Sidgwick Site

Thursday, 10 February

The Sharia - Human Rights or Human Wrongs?
Speaker: Arzu Merali, Islamic Human Rights Commission
1.05pm; Ramsden Room, St Catharine`s College

WEEK HIGHLIGHT
LAYLA - A Cultural Evening Inspired by Islam
An evening of live music, poetry, martial arts and Islamic art, along with a Moroccan souk-style market, henna tattooing and free food
Stalls open at 5pm, main event starts at 6pm; The Guildhall, Market Square

Friday, 11 February

Friday Prayers
An opportunity to observe the weekly Friday prayers, including a sermon by Timothy Winter
1.05pm; St Columba`s Hall, Downing Place (off Downing Street, see map)

From Captive to Convert
Speaker: Yvonne Ridley
The former Sunday Express journalist, captured and imprisoned by the Taleban in 2001 and now a Muslim convert, tells her story
6.45pm; Room LG19, Law Faculty, Sidgwick Site

For further information, please contact the University of Cambridge Press Office on 01223 332300

DM
mitra indeed is one of the sanskrit names for the Sun God.
i have seen it used in poetry. (i also knew a verry ``sunny`` irani woman named mitra..)

sanskrit is also written in a ``modi (sp?)`` script, which is kind of a cursive style of writing without lifting your pen. most of the early indian lit was oral (verse), and was written much later (8-th to 12-th century).

To add to Dost Mittar`s post, ``Knight`` meant servant, then it changed to an honor. ``Jamadar`` meant caretaker, now means a sweeper. I remember ``jamadar`` khushal singh`s samadhi. he was Ranjit singh`s jamadar.

ferozk #96 Actually the major battles of good vs evil have already been fought and won in the 20th century when the democracies beat the Totalitarian powers - first the Axis powers (which would have reduced you and me and the rest of the world to slave labor - or worse - while the Germans and the Japanese proclaimed themselves to be the Superior Race) and then Cold War.

The Soviets and the Nazis were indeed a powerful foe - and victory of the democracies was by no means certain. They were powerful both in terms of presenting a viable alternative to democracy both ideologically and in terms of material strength and military force.

The mullahs are a joke by comparison - they are barren ideologically (as the taliban showed - once in power they were clueless on what to do next other than brutalize people and destroy ancient relics) as well as militarily (like a band of thugs, they can prey upon innocent people - but cannot make a stand against even a platoon of military or even simple police force).

As they say, history repeats itself - the first time it is a tragedy (as the setbacks to human progress by the challenges of Nazism and Communism to democracy proved to be) and then as a comedy (in the form of mullahism).