Marwat Khan Lodhi
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 5,341
- Reaction score
- -29
- Country
- Location
Just read it for interest, excerpts from "Buy the Pathan, honour the Baloch".
-
Thomas Holdich's account of his twenty-year career as a military officer and surveyor on the western frontier.14 According to Holdich: The Baluch is easier to deal with and to control than the Pathan, owing to his tribal organization, and his freedom from bigoted fanaticism or blind allegiance to his priest. He respects and honours the chief of his clan, who possesses far greater authority in the tribal councils than is the case with the Pathan. The Pathan is a republican of the worst type. He is a law unto himself, and although he is very much under the infuence of the Mullah, he has always an eye to business, even in his most fanatical outbursts. Both are warlike and predatory, but their methods of fighting differ essentially, even when engaged in intertribal warfares. The Baluch fights openly, and faces the enemy boldly. There is a rough form of chivalry amongst the Baluch warriors, who are in most respects worthy descendants of the Arab conquerors of Asia . . . [T]he Pathan will make use of any stratagem or subterfuge that suits his purpose. He will shoot his own relations just as soon as his enemy, possibly sooner and he will shoot them from behind.
-In essence, Holdich and other colonial observers portray Pushtun social organization as egalitarian, and Pushtun themselves as entrepreneurial, religious, and treacherous, even towards their relatives; and they portray Baloch social organization as oligarchic and Baloch as forthright and especially concerned with honoour.
-In the contemporary setting the value attached to these `objective' traits can vary, however. A number of studies have shown that the denotative or core traits that make up stereotypes are most widely shared (even by members of the group against whom the stereotype is directed) and persistent, whereas their connotations, the values placed on those traits, vary through time and among individuals The positive connotation that can be attached to the entrepreneur is that he is industrious, the negative connotation is that he is venal; the positive connotation that can be attached to the man with strong tribal values is that he is principled, the negative connotation is that he is detached from the practical aspects of life. Thus several Pushtun informants asserted that their group's economic success is due to hard work, an aptitude for education, and their lack of regard for `backward' tribal institutions. On the other hand, their economic success is interpreted by Baloch as a sign of greediness and a lack of honor. For example, one Baloch informant said most Pushtun would kill their own brother for money, an assessment which combines greed, a want of tribal values, and the sense that Pushtun are at war with their relatives. Conversely, several of my Pushtun informants depicted the lack of Baloch economic success as caused by their laziness. `All they care about is their honor' a Pushtun bus driver told me. Baloch themselves often identify the high value placed on honor as characteristically Baloch. Several Baloch informants told me, for example, that no Baloch woman would ever dishonor herself by working as a prostitute, even if she was destitute. While some Baloch are highly critical of the power of hereditary tribal leaders, most view loyalty to these sardars as an expression of tribal values and therefore honorable. Pushtun informants described it as a symptom of their backwardness and subservience. `They will even kiss the hand of their sardar' one Pushtun said of the Baloch. This is not to say that Pushtun do not value honor (indeed, feuding among Pushtun is acted out through the discourse of honor), nor Baloch economic success; it is a matter of definitions and priorities with members of groups selecting certain traits, some of which are aspects of wider regional culture, to exemplify perceived differences with others.
-My thesis is that these different stereotypes result from differences in the social organization of the two peoples, differences which are summarized in the observation that Pushtun groupings are egalitarian and Baloch hierarchic. Baloch and Pushtun are culturally and socially similar. Both inhabit ecological zones in which agriculture is possible only in limited areas, though among the Baloch pastoralism has assumed much greater importance than among the Pushtun.18 On the basis of shared descent and territory, segmentary groupings are established in both societies, and those relationships are expressed in the cultural values of patrilineality, honor, and obligation to provide protection (and hospitality) to family and guests. Most Baloch like most Pushtun are Sunni Muslims. In Quetta the two peoples are interpenetrated, with marriages, partnerships, and friendships being formed between them, and in the rural areas, as discussed below, it is not uncommon for lineages in Baloch tribes to claim Pushtun origins. Despite these similarities and interconnections, there are signiccant differences in the socio-political structure of Baloch and Pushtun tribes.differences which are summarized in the observation that Baloch tribes are relatively centralized and hierarchic and Pushtun ones relatively decentralized and egalitarian. contemporary ethnographers consistently highlight the extreme individualism and radical equality prevalent among Pushtun which contrasts with the nested hierarchy of status and authority in Baloch groupings which culminates in the offfice of the sardar
The practical manifestation of equality among Pushtun is the jirga or council of elders.
The relationship between members of a council is one of equals; with no speaker or leader; the equality is emphasized by circular seating on the ground and the equal right of all to speak. The body does not finalize its decisions in a vote: discussion and negotiation continue until the decision is unopposed and thereby unanimous and binding as a decision by each participant . . . . It allows groups of men to arrive at joint decisions without compromising any participant's independence; it produces binding corporate decisions about concerted action without dissembling the structure of
egalitarian balanced segments through the introduction of any one's right to give commands in Pushtun society, to be another's client means bearing `inferior, non-tribesman serf status. Just as the emphasis on equality among Pushtun is unusual among tribal peoples in the Islamic world, so too is the degree of hierarchy in Baloch tribes as manifested in the level of authority and status held by Baloch sardars. Their wealth (from personally owned lands and the taxes they levy on their tribesmen and clients), their ability to determine who holds office at sub-tribal levels, and their formal connections with external political structures give these sardars considerable power to settle disputes and determine events within the tribe (Swidler 1969: 152). Indeed, the centrality of the sardar is such that recognition of his authority can initiate a process by which outsiders are incorporated into his tribe. Thus, most Baloch tribes have accretions of lineages from other Baloch tribes or even other ethnic groups around a core of lineages with recognized descent from the group's patronym. Even in areas, such as Makran, where patrilineal tribes have little importance in peoples' lives, other types of patron±client relationships play a determining role in social organization, and, as Barth points out, those relationships take on different signifcance than they do in Pushtun society.
