Pakistan, Caste and dilemma of quislings

[Project Dharma]

Todd assigns Scythian origin to the Rajputs. Scythians came to be known as Sakas in South Asia, and were absorbed in the Hindu fold as Kshatriyas. Sakas, Yavannas (Greco-Bactrians), Pallavas (Parthians) ultimately became Kshatriyas. The Huns are known to have been regarded as one of the 36 clans of Rajputs. However, except for the Huns, all others had mostly adopted Buddhism mixed with their religions (like Saka sun-worship).

This is not supported by the Hadappa ancestry project at least for Rajasthan. Rajasthani Rajputs DNA is somewhat dissimilar to Haryanvi and Punjabi Jatts who have Scythian origin

 

[Zulfiqar Khan]

Basic structure of Islam is just a primitive military syllabus Prophet Mohammed used to create a loyal army to serve him and his guidelines on all random matters to his band . It worked for him in his time and it works now. Due credit to him for understanding and exploiting the psychology of this age group.

How so?

In the case of Sikhism, I believe it is because picking up arms is considered a last resort and when all other means to address injustice have failed.

Chu kar az hama heelt e dar guzshat,
Halal ast burdan ba shamsheer dast.
"All modes of redressing the wrong having failed,
raising of sword is pious and just."

This is a stark contrast to the Mohammadan ideology of war against the kafir and attempts to convert the whole world to their religion.

There is no 'Mohammadan' ideology of war against kafirs. The Prophet always sought peace and saw war as a last resort as well. All wars fought under Muhammad (SAW) have been surveyed and shown to have been waged only in self-defence or to pre-empt an imminent attack. Muhammad (SAW) often criticized war and was much more interested in other things - such as raising living standards, breaking taboos, ratifying human rights and ethics of wars, abolishing infanticide, giving much more rights to women and ect... he also spoke greatly of seeking knowledge.

“the ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr.” ~ Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

Even in war; Muslims are taught

If these commands are not followed, you are not considered to be fighting for the cause of Allah and your death in battle does not mean you will become a Martyr.

Let's face the reality. Pakistan came into being on religious/ideological lines and its survival as a nation feeds on manufactured Muslim - Hindu 'enemity' - the raison d'être for the birth of the illegitimate state of Pakistan and the two nation theory.

So those who think that this divide can be bridged are barking up the wrong tree. The so called 'Aman ki Asha', CBMs and track two discussions are a complete farce.

The twain shall never meet. Period!

Pakistan did not come into being on entirely religious/ideological lines - had that been the case, Pakistan would've been much larger. Although religion may have influenced Pakistan or was used to garner support, Pakistan isn't completely based off of it.

On mainland Pathans were classified as upper caste. Even other central asians were barbarian tribals but mainland Indian Muslims created legends about them as if they were some advanced civilization who brought higher civilization to primitive India. Those Pashtuns who came earlier with Turkic armies got benefits of being associated with ruling class. However, Pashtuns have been migrating to mainland for jobs and mercenaries continuously even after that and large number are poor.

I'm not sure about that nor have I heard of anything like this. Maybe in India, Muslims think like this. But in Pakistan they don't.

So Pakistanis also teach same mythology to their children.

Not at all...
We're taught to abandon our caste/tribal identity and view it as a taboo.

However in reality West Punjabis are geographically close to these lands and they see these mythical knights in shining armour in reality as poor migrants and refugees. So Pakistanis name their missiles after Turkic and Afghan heroes and at the same time make Pathan jokes and treat them as dirt.

No one ever looked to us as 'mythical knights in shining armour'. Like I said, we're only respected for our contributions and sacrifices in the defence of Pakistan.

'Ethnic jokes' aren't limited to us. It can be aimed at every caste/tribe/culture/clan. Infact, Pashtuns don't even come close to the amount of jokes projected at other peoples. All castes/tribes are teased; although it's very frowned upon by adults, schools and ect... There are also limits to it - a joke is a joke and can't sound too racist or offensive. Although unfortunately, it's very common for people to make racist remarks against peoples like the Churas.

Neither are we treated as dirt. Like i've said; you don't really get judged on your origins or ethnicity it is either your wealth, piety and reputation for which you get judged upon. If you are a very poor Pashtun, you'll get treated just the same way a very poor Punjabi will get treated. Nowadays it has become very common to see inter-ethnic marriages. Especially between Pashtuns and Punjabis.

Pakistanis have adopted ideology of Urdu speaking class of North-central India and even made north-central Indian language Urdu their national language yet they try to prove how they are separate and superior from small black Indians.

Urdu was not chosen to prove how 'separate and superior' Pakistanis are from Indians.
Nor do we say we are more superior than Indians, you guys need to realize we don't think like this. I know there are some internet trolls who say disgusting racist shit similiar to this (for which i'm ashamed of) - but this is nowhere close to what 99% of Pakistanis perceive of Indians.

Honestly you should come and visit Pakistan, then you'll get a taste of our perceptions. Once people know you're Indian; shop keepers will refuse to take any money from you (as a sign of hospitality), restaurants will give you free food on the house, taxis/rickshaws will tour you around (free of cost) and ect...

Urdu was chosen because we needed a language that could be understood in the 5 provinces, was spoken skilled workers/elites (such as teachers, officers, engineers, government officials ect...). It was already lingua franca of Punjab and Sindh (after ban on Persian) and was spoken by elites/clerics of NWFP, Balochistan and Kashmir. It was a unifying language and if you look today; it has flourished and can be spoken in almost every corner of Pakistan. So that is how you know we made the right choice.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/317619/arab-origins/

The writer is author, most recently of, “The Apricot Road to Yarkand” (Sang-e-Meel, 2011) and a member of the Royal Geographical Society [email protected]

Every single Muslim in the subcontinent believes s/he is of Arab descent. If not direct Arab descent, then the illustrious ancestor had come from either Iran or Bukhara. Interestingly, the ancestor is always a great general or a saint. Never ever have we heard anyone boasting of an intellectual for a forebear. We hear of the progeny of savage robber kings, but there is no one who claims Abu Rehan Al-Beruni or Ibn Rushd as a distant sire.

Arab origin is the favourite fiction of all subcontinental Muslims. Most claim their ancestor arrived in Sindh with the army under Mohammad bin Qasim (MbQ). But, I have heard of lineages reaching back to Old Testament prophets as well. An elderly Janjua (Rajput), from the Salt Range told me of a forefather named Ar, a son of the Prophet Isaac. Ar, he said, was the ancestor of the races that spoke the Aryan tongue!

Touted as a local intellectual, this worthy was unmindful of the fact that Aryan was not a tribal name but a linguistic classification. Neither could he tell me how the name Ar, not being in the Old Testament, had reached him. He insisted this name headed his family tree and was, therefore true. The chart, written on a piece of rather newish paper had been, the Janjua insisted, copied from an old original. The original was of course destroyed after the copy was made.

The Arains flaunt Salim al Raee as their father — the clan being called after his surname. A great and valiant general in the army of MbQ, this man was from an agricultural family of Syria, so the Tarikh-e-Araiantells us. Closer to our times, the Arains are indeed acclaimed for their green thumb for which reason Shah Jehan relocated a large bunch of them to mind the newly laid out Shalimar Garden of Lahore. Today, they are a very rich clan in Baghbanpura.

The Tarikh expounds on this fictional ancestor’s noble background and courage in battle to the extent that he almost outshines MbQ. But it does not give us any source or reference for the rubbish that sullies its pages. There are two authentic histories of the Arab conquest of Sindh. Ahmad Al Biladhuri’s Futuh ul Buladan (written circa 860) and Hamid bin Ali Kufi’s Tarikh-e-Hind wa Sindh, translated first into the Persian asFatehnama Sindh and then into Sindhi as the Chachnama (written circa 1200).

There are dozens of names sprinkled across the pages of both works, but no mention is made of a blue-blooded warrior called Salim al Raee. There are other histories besides these two works which also disregard this name for the only reason that such a man never existed.

The Awans, similarly, have a fictional ancestor called Qutb Shah from the line of the last caliph of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. My friend Kaiser Tufail, an Arain, has had himself genetically tested from the US. He has no trace of Arab blood. His line comes from what is now Uzbekistan and has lived from early historic times in the subcontinent. The rest of us of this clan will see similar results should we go through this exercise. Kaiser had his son-in-law, an Awan, also tested. He, too, is singularly clean of Arab genes.

Most of us are the progeny of converts. In their need to escape the discrimination of the so-called higher castes, our ancestors converted to a religion that in theory claimed to profess human equality regardless of colour or caste. I use the words ‘in theory’ because even as the Arabs converted our ancestors to Islam, they discriminated against them for being “Hindis” as we learn this from Ibn Batuta’s own prejudices. And he is not alone.

Consequently, even after conversion, my ancestors, poor agriculturists, were looked down upon by the Arabs and even those who had converted earlier the same way as they were by the Brahmans when they professed their Vedic belief. Within a generation or two, those early converts began the great lie of Arab ancestry to be equal to other converts and the Arabs. This became universal with time.

The challenge then is for all those, Baloch, Pathan, Punjabi et al, who have invented illegitimate fathers for ourselves to get ourselves tested and know the bitter truth.

Quite shocked by this article; it deeply contrasts to what i've experinced. Arabs aren't glorified in Pakistan; we hold the same view on Arabs as Turks do - it also depends where you go. In Punjab they're talked of as girly or soft. In the rest there are diverse views; some respect them some don't.

In Pakistan, Rajput and Jat tribes are so mixed up that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other at many places and in several cases. Some of the Rajput tribes are probably of Jat origin and vice versa. In southwest Punjab the name Jat includes a most miscellaneous congries of tribes of all sorts. Its significance tends to be occupational: to denote a body of cultivators or agriculturists. Even tribes which bear well-known Rajput names are often classified as Jats in the Punjab. Anyway, the origin of both is the same as stated earlier.

That's true; you can hardly tell the difference between Jats and Rajputs - but that may be because they are very open when it comes to marriage.

chandragupta maurya

Pakistan never produced Chandragupta Mauyra...

In Punjab, it is considered a derogatory term by many to be called a Gujjar. In other parts like some parts of Haryana or UP, they are prominent. So go figure, it proves my point above more strongly.

Same, it depends here. In some places they are teased because of their association with livestock while in some places they are very respected. Gujjars hold a lot of power in rural areas.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Well my friend, not a single command is followed by militants. Even "good terrorists" aka "freedom fighters".

 

[Zulfiqar Khan]

Well my friend, not a single command is followed by militants. Even "good terrorists" aka "freedom fighters".

That's why we say; most terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

 

[Project Dharma]

That's why we say; most terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

Would it be alright with you if I opened a separate thread to ask some questions about Islam? I promise to keep the tone respectful and unoffensive.

 

[Zulfiqar Khan]

Would it be alright with you if I opened a separate thread to ask some questions about Islam? I promise to keep the tone respectful and unoffensive.

Ofcourse bro

......................

 

[Zulfiqar Khan]

Would it be alright with you if I opened a separate thread to ask some questions about Islam? I promise to keep the tone respectful and unoffensive.

I'll be able to reply tomorrow; it has gotten late here and i'll be heading to bed now.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

That's why we say; most terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

And that's why we say; terrorists are terrorists. Not good or bad.

 

[republic_roi97]

That's why we say; most terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

Then why most terrorist groups base themselves on Islam ? You all say that they are misinterpreting islam, I don't know much about Islam, hence a layman would always consider Islam (as an Ideology) a threat.
How do we know that they are misinterpreting Islam and that a common good muslim is not the one who is misinterpreting Islam ?

 

[Zulfiqar Khan]

Then why most terrorist groups base themselves on Islam ?

What we see right now is just a domino effect caused by the wahhabist movement, breakup of the Ottoman Empire, invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan, cultural intrusion into Islam, poor western policies (regarding Middle East) and lack of Islamic Education. All these factors culminated into the shit-storm we see today.

Just 10-15 years ago, the Middle East was in relative peace. Back then you would turn on your TV and hear news like "Mayor assassinated, 5 killed in Spain, Basque insurgents claim responsibility" - "700 held hostage held hostage by Karen Christian extremists in Thailand" - "774 Sri-Lankan policemen massacred by LTTE Gunmen" - "Briton Revolution Army and the IRA paralyze the UK in a spate of Attacks" - "Popular Revolution Army ambushes security convoy in Mexico, 20 dead" - "54 Colombian soldiers killed in FARC attack" and ect...

For every action, there is a reaction. Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist count went up from around 200 to 250,000.

These terrorist groups will use Islam to find justifications for their actions, garner support and so on. Most of their members have little knowledge about Islam other than the 5 pillars, they blindly but devoutly follow Islam (something the Prophet has warned against) and look towards (corrupted) 'clerics' for knowledge who misguide them further. They are brainwashed and turned into fanatical zombies.

How do we know that they are misinterpreting Islam and that a common good muslim is not the one who is misinterpreting Islam ?

We look towards the Prophet on how he acted upon what the Quran commands. This is called the 'Sunnah' - something Wahabists try to ignore.

Quran/Hadith/Sunnah makes it clear how to perceive Islam.

The Prophet and even in the Quran states not to go to the extreme.

Rasul Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “Beware of going to extremes (in religion), for those before you were only destroyed through excessiveness.” [An-Nasai]

Allah Most High says in the Quran, “Say: O people of the Book, do not be excessive in your religion.’” [4:171]

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Those who go to extremes are doomed.” He said it three times.
Narrated by Muslim (2670).



Terrorists take verses out of context in which the verses talk about a certain time, certain people and certain situation. They also try to conceal verses before and after the certain verse.
The Quran itself informs future generations about this.

Qur’an 5:101-102—O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur’an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.

The approach by terrorists is called 'Cut and Choose'.

The Quran wasn't revealed all at one time, it was revealed periodically and was important to guide Muslims of that age. For example if an enemy Mekkan Army has invaded your lands and is hell-bent on slaughtering every one of you; a Quranic verse won't say something like this "Go give them flowers" - a verse like this will be revealed:

2:191 And kill them wherever you find them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah [Persecution] is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Terrorists will use verses like those without trying to understand the context, they also try to conceal the verses that come before and after like.

(Before that verse)
2:190 Fight in the way of Godthose who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. God does not like transgressors.
(After that verse)
2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.
2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah [Persecution] and [until] worship is for God. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

I could give you much more examples, but I hope you understand now; willing to elaborate if you're confused on any more parts.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

@Zulfiqar Khan all this sophistry and references to wahabbism, iraq, afghan invasion etc is good to console yourself or brainwash western apologists who had little direct exposure with Islamism and terrorist attacks till recently; as west was insulated for long period after they destroyed ottoman empire and could use Muslims living in faraway lands as pawns in their colonial games.

But for east, it is uninterrupted story since thousand years. It does not start or end with some fancy excuses like wahabbism and Afghan invasion.

How you convince yourself about greatness of your religion is little concern for east. Proof of the pudding is in eating. For east it is purely a barbarian foreign imperialism in the mask of religion, and in ever expansionist mode.

Victims of Islamic imperialism are not just those non-muslims that get attacked but also the Muslim bahujan samaj who have been trapped by this imperialistic ideology, zombified and languishing in violence, crime and poverty ridden ghettoes. Elites of any society have resources to secure themselves in ivory tower and convince themselves how great the system is (and if sh** hits the fan, and flames reach the people in citadel, blame the people, take the gold and runaway to foreign land) but vast majority keep suffering if the system imposed on them is faulty and there is no alternative to it.

You can make deal with devil for power.

But beware devil might have his own plans.

For elites religion is just a tool to control masses. How many of such polished elites who use their debating skills to defend Islamism actually follow it in real life? All your generals and political chiefs who used Jihad against India and imposed Islamic state on people of north-west India were/are clean shaven, lot of them whisky drinking womanizers doing all sorts of illicit things in private and on foreign visits. They live in ivory towers and think they are too smart. And now they wonder why so many of junior officers are falling to 'extremist' ideology. No sir they are not following some deviant extremist ideology but the same ideology you brainwashed them with, in purer form. Don't complain if someone in your own house turns 'terrorist' and calls you 'sinner'. Try to convince them with these tricks then.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

@Zulfiqar Khan is the man in last pic 'Wahhabi'. Are the lawyers garlanding him misguided illiterate Wahhabis??

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Let's face the reality. Pakistan came into being on religious/ideological lines and its survival as a nation feeds on manufactured Muslim - Hindu 'enemity' - the raison d'être for the birth of the illegitimate state of Pakistan and the two nation theory.

So those who think that this divide can be bridged are barking up the wrong tree. The so called 'Aman ki Asha', CBMs and track two discussions are a complete farce.

The twain shall never meet. Period!

OK. So what is the solution? Build a fence and forget a country like Pakistan exists?

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

Smokers’ Corner: Polling for Pakistan: the democratic creation of a country

Writer of the above article is one of few favorite Pakistani columnists of Indians. He is leftist like other Pakistani columnists Indians like often criticizing Pakistan and sometimes even borderline blasphemy. Most people who have followed him will not doubt he is secular liberal etc in real life.
Yet he justifies Pakistan's creation with such words and glorifies the 'secular' Jinnah who was responsible for Direct action day and other crimes against humanity.

I have noticed (I might be wrong ) the self proclaimed liberal media outlets like Dawn, express tribune have very high number of Shias and other minorities. They are often very vocal calling for democracy, women's freedoms, minority rights, killing of terrorists and many times even criticize army policies. Yet when it comes to Kashmir, or conflict situation between India and Pakistan there will be no difference between them and any bearded Sunni Mullah. They might even turn more vitriolic.



Why this paradox?

.
.
Indian heart melt when they meet such people and read their views. They think we must support them, they are the real counter to the unwashed religious fanatics.

Or Indians think we are so smart, we can play the differences between Shia-Sunni (and through that achieve what exactly? no one knows).

There is no need to doubt their open mindedness in personal life. But at crucial moments, some of them can behave opposite and their behavior has cost more than the hundreds of small riots by bearded fanatics would cost.

e.g. As everyone now knows, Jinnah was pork eating, whiskey drinking anglicized non-religious/ secular Shia convert. Everyone used to praise his secularism, active role in nationalist politics. Yes at a crucial moment in history he made India pay a huge cost. He was instrumental in creation of Jihadi state of Pakistan and barbarian tribal invasion of Kashmir and death of millions of people in the process.
Marathas tried to play Shia-Sunni politics and supported Shuja-ud-Daula. At the last crucial moment he joined the invaders in the name of Islam and turned the balance in third war of Panipat.

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

some random anti-shia hate blog. Take it with a pinch of salt
Shia control over the Pakistani media

Some random forums
Why Are Shias Richer Than Sunnis And More Modern ?

Opening post in the above thread:

Well , it is certainly a FACT that Shias of the Indian Subcontinent are often richer , and more progressive than their Sunni counterparts. In both India AND Pakistan , Shias form the traditional FEUDAL ELITE class , i.e , Zamindars and Jagirdars, Shias also hold lucrative posts in the Government Service , Software Industry , Journalism etc.

WHY do you think that we Shias are BORN RICH ?

I mean , I have seen many iddle-class Shias , but I have NEVER observed a lower-class Dhobi , Mochi , Kasai or Chamar as a SHIA !

Majority of landlords in both India and Pakisdtan are Shias.

I have also seen that we are very reluctant to convert and do Dawah and Tableegh among lower-class people !

For example . in Lucknow in India , in the Majalis-e-Azaa , the poorer Sunnis are ALWAYS given a back seat , while evn RICHER Hindus or Sikhs are given front seats !

That is also compounded by the fact that many Noha-Khawans and Qawali-singers in India are actually Hindus !

Anyways , returning to my point , WHY are Shias richer than Sunnis ? whereas in Iraq , Shias are poorer !

Are Shia Muslims rich?

It would be wrong to generalize but there seems to be perception that Shias in Pakistan get too much importance in media narrative and that Shias on average are more prosperous and educated than the Sunni counterparts.

I think it just means that percentage of elites in Shias is more than their relative population (though still less than Sunni elites in real numbers). For poor there would not be much difference.

That would make sense because being close to power center has its natural advantages. Majority of large Muslim princely states were ruled by Nawabs. Naturally there would be more number of Shias among the elites of these princely states simply because as a community they were close to power center.
Some of these Nawabs, including Nizam of Hyderabad, then richest man in world, financed Pakistan movement.

Other reasons may be they are more adaptive. Also Pakistan didn't get any trader castes. Tiny minority of trader caste Ismailis who migrated from mumbai and gujarat controlled much of Karachi's trade.
.

.
.
.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawab
.

This facebook page copied from the above wikipedia page about Nawabs has this sentence which is now missing from the wikipedia article.

The title is specifically founded by Twelver Shia Muslim rulers from the word Naib - E - Imaam (which means Deputy or representative of the Living Imaam Muhammad al-Mahdi).

ORIGIN OF NAWABS -

3 August 2013 at 08:47
A Nawaab, was an honorific title ratified and bestowed by the reigning Mughal Emperor to semi autonomous Muslim rulers of princely states. The primary duties of a Nawab was to uphold the sovereignty of the Mughal Emperor alongside with the administration of a certain province.



The title of "Nawab" was also awarded as a personal distinction by the paramount power, similar to a British peerage, to persons and families who never ruled a princely state, for various services to the Government of British India. In some cases, these titles were also accompanied by jagirgrants, either in cash revenues and allowances or land-holdings. In the British Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sindh and Balochistan, some of the chiefs or Sardars of large or important tribes were also given the title, in addition to traditional titles already held by virtue of chieftainship.



The term "Nawab" was originally used for the Subahdar (provincial governor) or viceroy of a Subah (province) or region of the Mughal empire.



The title Nawbab or Nawaab is basically derived from the Arab word Naib which means "deputy." Muslim rulers preferred this as then they could be referred to as the deputies of God on earth and hence not infringing on God's title, i.e., Lord and master of this earth. The title is specifically founded by Twelver Shia Muslim rulers from the word Naib - E - Imaam (which means Deputy or representative of the Living Imaam Muhammad al-Mahdi).



The term "nawbab" is often used to refer to any Muslim ruler in north or south India while the term "Nizam" is preferred for a senior official—it literally means "governor of region". The Nizam of Hyderabad had several Nawabs under him: Nawabs of Cuddapah, Sira, Rajahmundry, Kurnool, Chicacole, et al. "Nizam" was his personal title, awarded by the Mughal Government and based on the term "Nazim" as meaning "senior officer".



The term "nawab" is still technically imprecise, as the title was also awarded to Hindus and Sikhs, as well, and large Zamindars and not necessarily to all Muslim rulers. With the decline of that empire, the title, and the powers that went with it, became hereditary in the ruling families in the various provinces. Under later British rule, nawbabs continued to rule various princely states of Awadh, Amb,Bahawalpur, Baoni, Banganapalle, Bhopal, Cambay, Jaora, Junagadh, Kurnool, Kurwai,Mamdot, Multan, Palanpur, Pataudi, Rampur, Malerkotla, Sachin, Rajoli and Tonk. Other former rulers bearing the title, such as the nawabs of Bengal and Oudh, had been dispossessed by the British or others by the time the Mughal dynasty finally ended in 1857. The title of the ruler of Palanpur was "Diwan" and not "Nawab".

The style for a nawbab's queen is Begum. Most of the nawbab dynasties were male primogenitures, although several ruling Begums of Bhopal and Ruchka Begum of TikaitGanj, near Lucknow were a notable exception.

Before the incorporation of the Subcontinent into the British Empire, nawabs ruled the kingdoms of Awadh (or Oudh, encouraged by the British to shed the Mughal suzereignty and assume the imperial style of Badshah), Bengal, Arcot and Bhopal.



Families ruling when acceding to India

• 
  
  
  • Nawab Babi of Balasinor
  • the former Nawbabs of Arcot Carnatic, restyled Princes of Arcot
  • Nawab of Banganapalle, previously Masulipatam
  • Nawab of Baoni
  • Nawab of Bhopal (female rulers were known as Nawab Begum of Bhopal)
  • Nawab of Cambay (Kambay)
  • Nawab of Dujana
  • Nawab of Farrukhabad
  • Nawab of Jaora
  • Nawab Sahib of Junagadh
  • Nawab of Kurwai
  • Nawab of Maler Kotla
  • Nawab of Basai Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan
  • Nawab of Maler Kotla

• 
  
  
  • Nawab of Mazari
  • Nawab of Muhammadgar
  • Nawab Sahib of Palanpur
  • Nawab of Pataudi
  • Nawab of Pathari
  • Nawab of Radhanpur
  • Nawab of Rampur
  • Nawab of Sachin
  • Nawab of Ashwath
  • Nawab of Savanur
  • Nawab of Tonk, India
  • Nawab of Rajoli, India

Families ruling when acceding to Pakistan (including present Bangladesh)

• 
  
  
  • Nawab of Karnal (Mandal-e-Nausherwani)
  • Nawab of Sarhad Nawab Gulmaizar khan.
  • Nawab of Dir (princely state)
  • Nawab of Makran
  • Nawab of Amb
  • Nawab of Bahawalpur
  • Nawab of Kharan
  • Nawab Sahib of Junagadh
  • Nawab of Malerkotla
  • Nawab of Chandka state
  • Nawab of Beka Nawbab Ali Tariq

Former dynasties which became political pensioners

• 
  
  
  • Padshah-i-Oudh, formerly Nawab Wazir of Awadh, also imperial Wazir of all Mughal India, both hereditary

• 
  
  
  • Nawabs of Bengal, as Nawabs of Murshidabad
  • Nawab of Surat
  • Nawab of Marauli
  • Nawab of Patna

Personal Nawbabs:

The title nawab was also awarded as a personal distinction by the paramount power, similarly to a British peerage, to persons and families who never ruled a princely state. For the Muslim elite various Mughal-type titles were introduced, including Nawab. Among the noted British creations of this type were:

1) Nawab Hashim Ali Khan (1858–1940),

2) Nawab Khwaja Abdul Ghani (1813–1896),

3) Nawbab Abdool Luteef (1828–1893),

4) Nawab Faizunnesa Choudhurani (1834–1904),

5) Nawab Ali Chowdhury (1863–1929),

6) Nawbab Syed Shamsul Huda (1862–1922)

7) Nawbab Sirajul Islam (1848–1923),

8) Nawab Alam yar jung Bahadur, M.A, Madras, B.A., B.C.L., Barr-At-Law (1888–1975).

9) Nawabs of Dhanbari (Tangail),

10) Nawbabs of Ratanpur (Comilla),

11) Nawbabs of Baroda etc...

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...n-idiotic-musings.21193/page-408#post-1236878

rauf kalsara fucking brigadier

Rauf Klasra is Punjabi Jat Muslim but non-fauji type and reads and quotes from a lot of books. He seems to have seen through the Pakistani establishment smokescreen and often talks sense.

The person he is talking with is some upper caste retired army officer 'Syed' Ghazanfar Ali.
.
.

Here Klasra is talking with one Zafar Hilali. This bald upper caste guy is mohajir migrated from territory of Shia Niazam of Hyderabad in South India. He claims his ancestors were from Iran. He daily spews venom and religious insults against India in evening talk shows. Basically spews ISI propaganda.

 

[vinuzap]

some random anti-shia hate blog. Take it with a pinch of salt
Shia control over the Pakistani media

Some random forums
Why Are Shias Richer Than Sunnis And More Modern ?

Opening post in the above thread:



Are Shia Muslims rich?

It would be wrong to generalize but there seems to be perception that Shias in Pakistan get too much importance in media narrative and that Shias on average are more prosperous and educated than the Sunni counterparts.

I think it just means that percentage of elites in Shias is more than their relative population (though still less than Sunni elites in real numbers). For poor there would not be much difference.

That would make sense because being close to power center has its natural advantages. Majority of large Muslim princely states were ruled by Nawabs. Naturally there would be more number of Shias among the elites of these princely states simply because as a community they were close to power center.
Some of these Nawabs, including Nizam of Hyderabad, then richest man in world, financed Pakistan movement.

Other reasons may be they are more adaptive. Also Pakistan didn't get any trader castes. Tiny minority of trader caste Ismailis who migrated from mumbai and gujarat controlled much of Karachi's trade.
.

.
.
.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawab
.

This facebook page copied from the above wikipedia page about Nawabs has this sentence which is now missing from the wikipedia article.

hilali claims to be advisor to benazir during turbulent kashmir

jinnah was a shia to but they learned the lesson hard way after partition as partition destroyed them most and look at what is happening to them in pakistan, same is happening to ismalis in pakistanis as they to are now considered kafirs

 

[Project Dharma]

In fact: Punjabis dominate the Pakistan Army — but only just
A Jat from Ghakhar Mandi in Pakistan’s Punjab, Bajwa is the third successive Punjabi since 2007 to lead Pakistan Army.

Written by Sameer Arshad Khatlani | Updated: December 7, 2016 3:29 am

General Qamar Javed Bajwa (Source: AP)
WHEN General Qamar Javed Bajwa took over as Pakistan’s new Army Chief, superseding four Lieutenant Generals, it confirmed the Punjabi dominance over the country’s armed forces. A Jat from Ghakhar Mandi in Pakistan’s Punjab, Bajwa is the third successive Punjabi since 2007 to lead the country’s Army, which inherited the predominance of Pakistan’s largest linguistic group from the British.

In 1939, as many as 29% of soldiers in the British Indian Army, which was split between India and Pakistan after Partition, were Punjabi Muslims, mostly from Pakistani Punjab. Their ascendancy in the British forces is rooted in the Revolt of 1857 that made colonial rulers distrustful of men from the traditional recruiting grounds of modern-day Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. The hardy Punjabi Muslims were seen to be more loyal to the British; North Indian Muslims, one of the mainstays of the revolt, in contrast, were seen to be nostalgic for the Mughal rule that the British had replaced.

Watch what else is making news






Dilip Kumar Admitted In Lilavati Hospital











The Punjabi dominance, however, has not been absolute. Pathans, the second most dominant ethnic group within Pakistan’s armed forces, and Urdu speakers (Muhajirs) have punched above their weight when it comes to leading the Army. Pakistan got its first Punjabi Army Chief, General Tikka Khan, only in 1972, 25 years after independence. Five Punjabi generals, not including Bajwa, have headed the Army since then — Punjabis have occupied the top post for only 28 of the 69 years of Pakistan’s existence. Seven — fewer than half — of the 16 Chiefs so far have been Punjabis. Until 2007, only 4 out of 13 Chiefs were Punjabis, who account for 56% of Pakistan’s population and enjoy an upper hand in the military and bureaucracy. Just 1 out of 4 military dictators has been a Punjabi.

On the other hand, Pathans, who are 16% of the country’s population, have given Pakistan 4 Army Chiefs with a combined 16 years in charge. Two of the 4 military rulers, Field Marshal Ayub Khan and Punjab-born General Yahya Khan, were Pathans who ruled for 14 years.

General Zia-ul-Haq, the lone Punjabi dictator, who was from Jalandhar and an alumnus of Delhi’s St Stephen’s College, ruled Pakistan for 11 years. The Urdu-speaking General Pervez Musharraf, who was born in Delhi, ruled for 9 years after overthrowing Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a 1999 coup. Non-Punjabi dictators have ruled Pakistan for 25 of its 34 years of military rule.

The high proportion of Pathans in Pakistan’s armed forces has offset challenges to the country’s sovereignty. Successive Afghan regimes, including that of the Taliban, have refused to recognise the Durand Line that divides Pakistani and Afghan Pathan areas, where some 4 crore people live. Around 3 crore Pathans are Pakistani citizens who live in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly Northwest Frontier Province), where separatism predated Pakistan’s breakup in 1971. Unlike Pathans, Bengalis were less than 1% of the Pakistani Army — this lopsided representation is blamed for exacerbating tensions between East and West Pakistan that eventually led to the creation of Bangladesh with India’s help.

Pathan General Ayub Khan’s appointment as the first Pakistani head of the Army in 1951 coincided with the rise of separatism in NWFP. He led the first military coup 7 years later, and remained at the helm for the next 11 years as President. Pathans acquired greater stake in Pakistan during this time, and helped counter separatism. On the other hand, the language riots in East Pakistan over the imposition of Urdu in 1952 turned out to be a slippery slope. The one-language formula reflected the Muhajir dominance over the bureaucracy and their idea of a unitary state. Bangladesh’s creation led to the demise of the two-nation theory that the Muhajirs had played a key role in propounding.

Pakistan’s humiliating dismemberment played a key role in shaping the young commando Musharraf, one of the two Urdu-speaking Mujahir Army Chiefs — the other being the Azamgarh-born General Mirza Aslam Beg. Between them, they helmed the Army for 12 years — while their community of Urdu-speaking immigrants from India comprises only 6% of Pakistan’s population. Beg steered the Kashmiri insurrection in the late 1980s, while Musharraf masterminded the limited war in Kargil to internationalise the Kashmir dispute.

General Muhammad Musa, who belonged to the minuscule Hazara community from Baluchistan, led the Army for 8 years (1958 to 1966). But no Sindhi or Baluch (3%) has ever taken what’s arguably the country’s most powerful post. The late Army chief General Asif Nawaz’s brother, the author Shuja Nawaz, has accessed documents that show that only 15% of soldiers belong to Sindh and Baluchistan. Soldiers from Sindh may not necessarily be ethnic Sindhis, who form Pakistan’s second biggest ethnic group (17%). The British had granted large numbers of Punjabis land and settled them in the province for their military services. Author Anatol Lieven has argued that Punjabi settlers “have contributed a disproportionate number of recruits from Sindh”. There has, of late, been an attempt to encourage the recruitment of the so-called non-martial Sindhis and Baluch by lowering fitness and educational requirements.

The far smaller region of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, whose demographic makeup mirrors Punjab’s Pothwar region where a majority of Pakistani soldiers are recruited from, contributes 6% recruits, as per Shuja Nawaz’s account. A bulk of the soldiers are drawn from Punjab (65%), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Federally Administered (Pathan) Tribal Areas (15%). Even within Punjab, recruits are chiefly drawn from the Pothwar region’s Jat, Rajput, Awan, Gakkar and Gujjar biradris. At least three Army Chiefs — Generals Tikka Khan, Asif Nawaz and Raheel Sharif — have been Punjabi Rajputs.

@LordOfTheUnderworlds @Screambowl

http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/pakistan-army-general-qamar-javed-bajwa-4412295/

 

[Bharat Ek Khoj]

This shia sunni thing is almost everywhere. In india, shia can't have Tazia julus in UP because of Sunnis ( though its allowed in other states).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadari_in_Lucknow

 

[LordOfTheUnderworlds]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_race

Martial race was a designation created by Army officials of British India after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, where they classified each caste into one of two categories, 'martial' and 'non-martial'. The ostensible reason was that a 'martial race' was typically brave and well-built for fighting,[1]while the 'non-martial races' were those whom the British believed to be unfit for battle because of their sedentary lifestyles. However, an alternative hypothesis is that British-trained Indian soldiers were among those who rebelled in 1857 and thereafter recruitment policy favoured castes which had remained loyal to the British and diminished or abandoned recruitment from the catchment area of the Bengal army.[2]The concept already had a precedent in Indian culture as one of the four orders (varnas) in theVedic social system of Hinduism is known as theKshatriya, literally "warriors."[3]

Tribes and groups designated as martial races

British-declared martial races in the Indian subcontinent included some groups that were officially designated instead as "agricultural tribes" under the provisions of the Punjab Land Alienation Act of 1900. These terms were considered to be synonymous when the administration compiled a list in 1925. Among the communities listed as martial were:[16]

• Ahir
• Arain
• Awan
• Baloch (Baluch)
• Gakhar
• Gurjar
• Hindu Jat
• Jat Sikh
• Kamboh
• Khattar
• Khokhar
• Labana
• Mahton
• Mughal
• Muslim Jat
• Pathan
• Qureshi
• Rajput
• Ranghar
• Jarral
• Saini
• Syed

Communities that were at various times classified as martial races include:

• Kodava[17]
• Gurkhas[18]
• Marathas[19]
• Nairs[20][21] (removed after rebelling)
• Reddys[22]
• Sikhs[23]
• Tanolis[24][25]
• Mohyal[26]

The recruitment of 'Madrassis' for infantry only took place during the Second World War when large numbers of troops were required to defend the British Empire in the form of a newly raisedMadras Regiment. The Nairs of Kerala were initially included in the list, however after the Nairs of Travancore rebelled against the British under Velu Thampi Dalawa, they were recruited in lower numbers.[citation needed]