History’S Baggage: Pakistan’S Punjab Problem

[Jonny101]

By Ayaz Amir

Arising from the same soil, breathing the same air, moving to the same folk songs and music, defined by the same five rivers, Punjab over the centuries has yet produced two distinct types of personality: the Muslim Punjabi and the Sikh Punjabi. There is also the Hindu Punjabi but for ease of discussion let the first two categories suffice.

The Sikhs were not just the followers of a new religion. Under a succession of Sikh warlords taking advantage of the long twilight of the Mughal Empire, and then under Ranjit Singh who founded a Sikh kingdom – the first unified Punjabi political entity in over 2000 years – they became a nation.

In this journey from obscurity to kingship, the Sikhs proved themselves tough warriors, more than a match for the Mughals to the east and the Afghans to the west. After Nadir Shah’s invasion of India (1739 – a mere 32 years after the death of Aurangzeb) Punjab fell from Mughal hands, becoming first a possession of Nadir Shah’s empire and then part of Ahmed Shah Abdali’s kingdom of Kabul.

The Sikhs took back Punjab from the Afghans and through war and conquest Ranjit Singh made Peshawar a part of his Sikh kingdom. Successors to the Sikhs were the British and when the Lahore Durbar, after the death of Ranjit Singh, became a victim of intrigue and dissension, and the Khalsa army suffered defeat in two wars, Punjab became part of the British Empire.

And we have succeeded the British. Ranjit Singh’s success was on the battlefield. His failure was the failure of Indian despotism, Muslim and non-Muslim alike: the inability to lay the foundations of a lasting political order. The Delhi Sultans couldn’t do it; the Mughals couldn’t do it; and Ranjit Singh failed in the same measure.

There’s one thing missing from this picture. Even when Ranjit Singh was lord of Punjab, Muslims constituted the majority in his kingdom, as also in Kashmir. But from the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 right up to the British annexation of Punjab in 1849, a span of 150 years, Muslim governors and commanders – in Kasur, Multan and elsewhere – appear as minor characters, acknowledging the suzerainty of Kabul or Lahore, but lacking the dash or energy to fill the vacuum caused by the collapse of Mughal power in Punjab.

The Sikhs made that grab for power. They had the drive and the ability, and the fighting prowess. But where was the Punjabi Muslim? Why wasn’t he able to throw up a leadership equal in valour and élan to the rampaging Sikh? The Chathas would sometimes put up a fight, as would the Bhattis and, to the north, tribes like the Janjuas. But they couldn’t stand up to Sikh power.

One Muslim name stands out: that of Adina Beg Khan who through ability and intelligence became very briefly ruler of Lahore. But he died and that was it and soon over the battlements of the Lahore Fort, built by Akbar the Great, shone the star of Ranjit Singh.

This is not history for the sake of history. It sheds some light on our predicament today. Indian Punjab is just a planet in the Indian constellation. But Pakistani Punjab because of numbers and resources, representation in the army and administration, is the engine, the motor, the driving force of this republic.

We lament the quality of leadership… that we could do much better if we had a better leadership class. But if Muslim Punjab couldn’t perform this feat in that long interregnum of Mughal decline, by what magic does it reverse the dynamics of history and from the same air, the same soil, the same rivers – in fact no longer five but three – produce a class of warriors and administrators (warriors in the metaphorical sense) that can lead Pakistan out of the shadows and into the sun?

We are successors not to the Sikhs but the British. Lahore today – its Mall, its old buildings, its seats of authority, the best of its schools and colleges, the best of its hospitals, the Secretariat, the police chief’s office, the assembly building, the high court – is a reminder not of our Sikh but our British past. The settlement of land, the demarcation of tehsil and district boundaries, qanungo and patwar circles, even thana jurisdictions (many of them) are a reflection of that past.

The British were not just conquerors. They were more than that, flag-bearers of a superior civilisation. Japan embraced this civilisation and became a great power. China has embraced the same civilisation – signified by knowledge and learning – and is on its path to world greatness.

The Punjabi Muslim had no qualms about enlisting in the British army and fighting its battles in distant lands. The Muslim Punjabi from Chakwal, Jhelum, Rawalpindi, Attock and the other enlistment districts distinguished himself under British colours, sometimes even winning the highest awards. As a subordinate there was no one who came near his merit. But when it came to acquiring the mental habits of that superior civilisation there arose before him problems of the mind and psychology.

Punjab was the sword arm of the empire but the Muslim component of its mind remained trapped in a time warp. Instead of looking forward and stepping into the future the Punjabi mind harked back to an imaginary past, there seeking its greatest comfort.

The Pathan was not afraid of India. He had ruled India in the past. The Sindhi had no problem with India. For centuries past Muslims and Hindus had lived together in Sindh in amity. The Baloch imagination moved in other spheres: Iran to the west, Afghanistan to the north. As for the Kashmiri, his fate had not figured in the convoluted events leading up to Partition.

The fear of India was an obsession of the Punjabi ruling class and its ideological fellow-travellers crossing over from East Punjab, Delhi, Lucknow, Bhopal, Bihar and Hyderabad Deccan. Fear and insecurity they carried in their hearts and minds and fear and insecurity they made part of the ruling ethos of the new state.

There was another thing to note. Muslim conquerors had won their Indian dominion at the point of the sword. The Mughals had gained their empire the same way. Ranjit Singh created his Sikh kingdom by the sword and a high order of statesmanship. The British won their empire through the sword and the power of a forward civilisation. But the Punjabi Muslim, now the dominant partner in the new state, was receiving his gift not through dint of effort but the sheer force of circumstances.

So is it any surprise if the Punjabi Muslim and his Mohajir ally, sharing the same mindset and the same analysis of history, instead of making something of their gifted acquisition went back into the past, worshipping at the altar of confused ideology, looking at the future with fearful eyes and falling into the lap of outside powers to gain a feeling of security?

And the differences which still persist: look at Indian Punjab, its dance and vitality and the thing they have made of the bhangra. In Lahore kite-flying and basant become a threat to national security. Talk and think a bit openly and you invite the wrath of the ideological battalions. And in a city on the crest of whose fort the emperor Jahangir drank deep and looked into Noor Jahan’s eyes, to get a drop of anything requires a visit to a Christian friend or a spiritual mentor (otherwise known as a bootlegger).

Getting a drop is not the point; liberating the Muslim Punjabi mind is. For hundreds of years men and women entered the Data Darbar through the same gates. Then a committee, of which Finance Minister Ishaq Dar is a member, decided that piety was best served if the gates were segregated. And minds keen as his are supposed to fix our economy.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-219855-Historys-baggage-Pakistans-Punjab-problem

[Singh559]

Interesting read, but he indirectly also says the Sikh rule was also inferior to the British.

Well written and agree with him with most of it.

[username1]

It's painful to read but there is truth in this:

We are successors not to the Sikhs but the British. Lahore today – its Mall, its old buildings, its seats of authority, the best of its schools and colleges, the best of its hospitals, the Secretariat, the police chief’s office, the assembly building, the high court – is a reminder not of our Sikh but our British past. The settlement of land, the demarcation of tehsil and district boundaries, qanungo and patwar circles, even thana jurisdictions (many of them) are a reflection of that past.

The British administration has really changed the world works, how capitalism, schools, institutions, businesses work and operate based of the old east indian tea company model plus infrastructure and transport is all British made.

Sikhs can do well in India's punjab and go more further than Pakistan's can if we apply ourselves properly.

[username1]

Interesting read, but he indirectly also says the Sikh rule was also inferior to the British.

Well written and agree with him with most of it.

Islamically it will be, Sikhs after all are in a different category of kaffirs to christians are. Sikhs come under the category of either being a sect of hindus hence idol worshiper who need to be slayed, people who made a new religion which is preaching under shariah hence must be slayed or even more seriously followers of the anti christ devil with magic and must be slayed. Dhimmis rulings have specific class measurements a Shia would rank higher than a Christian and Christian would be more higher than a Sikh. A sikh can be equal, less, or more than a hindu at times. Based of seeing hinduism as a lost ancient tradition which was identical to islam and sikhs constructed a sect to make war on islam. Some view Sikhi as a convierbelt of monotheism an easy model to deliver monotheism to hindus and disbelief in their dieties allowing muslims then to make easy work of the conversion to introduce the prophethood of muhammad. Or equal in the sense of both being very abstract to the absolute truth hence they must be absolute falsehood collectively.

Where as christians are mislead true followers of jesus who didn't get the whole picture of jesus not actually being crucified and prophecising muhammad. And muhammad in some of his chapters has exempt christians from great scrutiny at times. However culturally and ancestry wise we are closer to pakistani's but for them their religious identity is more important than their national or cultural identity. British rule was more just than any islamic rule such as the mughals or lodhis has ever been and it was much more fair. Sikhs prospered very high in british rule and Sikhs were rewarded very well for their loyalty.

Another problem when looking at sikhs and british ruling patterns is how much attention the british put to education than sikhs did perhaps we can argue the british destroyed all signs of previous institutions of sikhs and libraries but it seems from oral history we can't track that much down either. Another thing was Sikhs didn't master the art of diplomacy very well to the aid of their nation and the infighting was more destructive than constructive as we can find in the times of the guru had been. Sikhs infighting had lead sikhs to developing their skills as warriors and tactionists.

Not to mention Ranjit Singh was one eyed muhammad foretold that the antichrist will be one eyed hence many muslims kill children who are born with one eyed for medical reasons aswell. Hence the fear of an anti christ demon ruling was scarier than a british nation who bared the symbol of christ on their flag. Ruling through a monarch who is also head of their own church.

[Singh559]

There's a Singh from California doing his PhD at Oxford University working on his thesis. At the Sri Dasam Granth Seminar he mentioned there is at least one eyewitness account from a Dutch individual who said each official in the pind (i forgot who exactly - you can check the video) was ordered to collect all written material and they had it burnt.

The grounds I disagree with the author of this essay is that he did not account for this. Yes, there was much work to have been done, but eventually the Sikh Raaj would have adopted a similar society building algorithm/formula as the British because all succesful civilizations have a Universal order that makes one more successful than the other. I think the explanation to the British being more successful is their extensive record keeping, unparalleled focus on small detail, well trained diplomats, intelligence gathering, planning and using chalaaki to subdue an enemy.

Sikh Empire was still new and was being established, if it had gone on it would have become a big problem in the future. Even without the British there may have been many problems.

Who knows though, this is just my semi-educated guess.

[Jonny101]

Interesting read, but he indirectly also says the Sikh rule was also inferior to the British.

Well written and agree with him with most of it.

The Sikh state was still in it's infancy when it was absorbed into British India. At the time when the sovereign Sikhs state existed, it was better off than the rest of India. People from all over India would come to Punjab to find employment. This was before the industrial age. So had we gone into the Industrial age perhaps our people might have replicated the success of Japan which also transformed itself from a feudal society into an advanced industrial nation rivaling the west. At the time the Sikh army was just as disciplined as any of the best European armies. When the British had gifted the Sikhs one cannon, the Sikhs did reverse engineering and replicated that cannon and made it better than the original. The Brits were just lucky Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa died early.

[Singh559]

The Sikh state was still in it's infancy when it was absorbed into British India. At the time when the sovereign Sikhs state existed, it was better off than the rest of India. People from all over India would come to Punjab to find employment. This was before the industrial age. So had we gone into the Industrial age perhaps our people might have replicated the success of Japan which also transformed itself from a feudal society into an advanced industrial nation rivaling the west. At the time the Sikh army was just as disciplined as any of the best European armies. When the British had gifted the Sikhs one cannon, the Sikhs did reverse engineering and replicated that cannon and made it better than the original. The Brits were just lucky Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa died early.

Yep, our mathematics, science and engineering were quite advanced. The civilization was forming and many people from France, USA, Britain and general Europe went to the Sikh empire to get a piece of what it was turning into.

[proud2bejatt]

Few things first the Sikh empire did not lose the wars, it lost due to treachery.

Also if you study the manufacture of consent, you must understand what the author is really writing:

I.e a Punjabi diatribe, written by someone most likely a Punjabi or Pathan who is subtly ruled or controlled by mujahir i.e today's dogras.

Sikhs are a united Punjabi tribe (in one sense) and are a bigger tribe than any singular Punjabi tribe. Many in West Punjab see them as the natural rulers of Punjab as well, and have no problems with this or that.

--

The whole muslim aspect someone talked about, while theologically correct is far too cynical. For one reason, because most anyone but a maulvi will know nothing about it.

Look to the fact that Punjabi Muslims fought with the Khalsa, not against it.

--

Anyway, Punjab's sun will rise agian and soon and it will b e over both sides. Just watch and see that,

----

The Pakistan government's actions of allowing Sikhs no visa to visit sites accross the border, ZIA Ul Haq airlifting Sikhs out of Waziristan etc. show that just as in Sindh Hindu Muslim lived properly in Punjab Muslim Sikh did too. Outside of the political regime, or do you think when Singhs were moving house to house, they somehow found the houses of the few thousand Sikhs out of millions of Punjabis 100% of the time?

[proud2bejatt]

Also Sikh guns were on par with the British, if Maharaja Ranjit Singh had assisted Shaheed Baba Akali Phoola Singh Nihang in the assult of Ludhiana we probably would not be having this discussion at all, let alone in English.

[proactive]

The Sikh state was still in it's infancy when it was absorbed into British India. At the time when the sovereign Sikhs state existed, it was better off than the rest of India. People from all over India would come to Punjab to find employment. This was before the industrial age. So had we gone into the Industrial age perhaps our people might have replicated the success of Japan which also transformed itself from a feudal society into an advanced industrial nation rivaling the west. At the time the Sikh army was just as disciplined as any of the best European armies. When the British had gifted the Sikhs one cannon, the Sikhs did reverse engineering and replicated that cannon and made it better than the original. The Brits were just lucky Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa died early.

Essentially where reason that the Sikhs lost out both in 1849 and in 1947 was demographics. Had the Sikhs been the majority in Punjab in 1849 then the British would never have been able to subdue the Khalsa and if they did win a few battles the Punjab would have been ungovernable for them and then there would have been mutiny in 1857. The article is true in one aspect, the Punjab Muslims got a country gifted to them by the British without any effort but then the British also gifted the rest of the India to the Brahmin elite.

Where Maharaja Ranjit Singh failed was that he did not utilise the decade of relative peace from 1829 to 1839 to look to the future and make the state that he had created into a permanent entity. Had the Anglo-War war not happened in 1845 and the Sikh state been able to keep the British at bay for another 50 years say into 1899 then the British would never have annexed it even had there been a war at that time. There is every possibility that the state would have replicated what the Japanese had done and become an industrial power. Given the existence of this state then when the British would have left India then they would left it exactly how they found it. The Princely states would have become independent and the British provinces also would probably have become independent or at the very least a loose confederation. The Sikh states south of the Sutlej would have been in an interesting position. They could either have merged together to become an independent state or merged with the Lahore state. The East Punjab districts which were British possession such as Ferozpur, Ludhiana and Ambala which had a Sikh population of 33% would have gone into the merger.So in the alternate history had the Lahore state survived the Sikhs in 1947 would have stood tall on the world stage having a 150 year of state at Lahore becoming stronger by the merging of the eastern part of the Punjab into it.