What's new

Why did Pakistanis decided to keep Thier pre-islamic sirnames while Muslims in rest of the South Asia didn't?

Genghis khan1 pashtuns faught against mughals, brutal insurgencies and battles

mughals commited atrocities against sikhs and they pretty much religiously dislike mughals
If you read legends or heroic figures of muslim Punjabi history a bunch of their heroes were heroes because they faught against mughals/Delhi ( admittedly chunk of mughal army was Punjabi but that's probably because of gold, money, it being more of a profession)

All these circumstances mean I doubt this region would have been thier refuge as people were not as friendly to em compared to other regions
Mughals were the leadership, tactical brain behind the battles. Early on Afghans, than Punjabi so on and so forth different ethnicities get added on as empire expanded.

If you read Babur Nama. Babur started with nothing. Most of these Muslims that exist in Indian subcontinent are because of Mughal. Pakistani language and food credit goes to the empire.
 
.
that's not how caste system works, you have a misconception. few people will recognize Brahmins as "above" them—the main point of caste system is looking down upon others. Bahman is not a slur one usually calls others with derogatory connonations, that's reserved for other lower castes—like Chuhras, and many other famous ones.
this is common for many regions where Brahmins don't have a large population, nothing to do with "Indus region".
that's exactly what a caste system is—enforced endogamy. if a Jatt Muslims daughter wants to marry a pious Muslim of a lower caste, will he allow that considering his piety or will she more likely be disgraced if not honour killed?


the excerpt isn't saying that they had different social organisation—i.e. not caste system. obviously "social customs" differ from place to place, specially when they have different religious majorities, but I doubt anyone before 1947, or even upto 1970 would have suggested the areas of Pakistan don't have caste system, and people there don't look down upon "lower castes"—the essence of caste system.


no, I'm not confusing anything. many Indian castes were tribes—you are in confusion for thinking them to mutually exclusive. Jatts, Gurjjars, and many other were "tribes" and "clans" that grew into endogamic "castes" that looked down upon lower castes.

for your theory to make sense, they would to be "tribes" since all the way back. surely when Sindh and Punjab were Hindu, they had castes. and surely they didn't simply vanish into thin air as soon as Islam came, and some totally different tribal system came into being. those same castes, which you're calling "tribes", always were there through Islamisation, and never went away.

dude, there is no concept of "lower" anything or looking down on anyone for who they are - that's an alien concept growing up, I never heard it in my life
you can go pull that crap of lower, upper on anyone and they'll laugh at you and you'll get a beating, society at large will shame you for it
because everyone literally everyone thinks they are good, unique, different

arab tribes to this day practice endomony- that does not make them castes and when it happen its applied to anyone non-them period nothing to do with low or high as that doesn't exist (it rarely happens nowadays btw)
And when our society isn't treating anyone in a bad manner because of who he is, when you barely find anyone looking down on anyone because of who he is
Do you see different mosques for different clans?, Different schools?, different shops?, Forget that different neighborhoods?
Than what's the issue here?

Why we are against calling it castes are cause this is our hertige and we don't want to lose it
When you called it castes than it comes with persecution of others, hierarchy based on birth and islamists hate that thing and slowly people will come to take away our hertige from us

We don't want that, kindly stop labeling it castes as we will have things to say if you call it "castes" exactly the same thing as in Hindustan
As it's not castes cause we don't look down on anyone because of what they're born into, thier is no concept of high and low - there's concept of different clans who live in different regions

I don't know about Sindhis but maybe @SABRE can talk more about it
What I do know is they're also a clan based society
 
. .
I don't even know what's the basic premise of the argument/debate here. Care to give me a summary?
he is saying our society is exactly like Hindustan we also carry our caste name thus we also have same level of discrimination as they have in Hindustan - different temples, not eating on the same plate, just general treatment of lower caste people even if they get rich or not
He is saying that both Sindh and Punjab have Hindu centric caste system still taking place to this day as they are Indic people - it's a hierarchical society where you are born into a good caste or bad castes and you'll remain so forever
 
.
he is saying our society is exactly like Hindustan we also carry our caste name thus we also have same level of discrimination as they have in Hindustan - different temples, not eating on the same plate, just general treatment of lower caste people even if they get rich or not
He is saying that both Sindh and Punjab have Hindu centric caste system still taking place to this day as they are Indic people - it's a hierarchical society where you are born into a good caste or bad castes and you'll remain so forever

To some extent its true in the rurual settlements -----.

A mussali student got evicted from the college canteen ------ for sitting on a table already occupied by so and so biradri/caste fellows .
 
.
To some extent its true in the rurual settlements -----.

A mussali student got evicted from the college canteen ------ for sitting on a table already occupied by so and so biradri/caste fellows .
Never seen this level of discrimination in my life in Punjab
 
. .
he is saying our society is exactly like Hindustan we also carry our caste name thus we also have same level of discrimination as they have in Hindustan - different temples, not eating on the same plate, just general treatment of lower caste people even if they get rich or not
He is saying that both Sindh and Punjab have Hindu centric caste system still taking place to this day as they are Indic people - it's a hierarchical society where you are born into a good caste or bad castes and you'll remain so forever

The answer is very complex and I don't think I can paint a correct picture here because explaining it always makes it sound worse than it actually is. Let me just say that to an extent this is true, but it's not as bad as it is in India, or as it is in the hierarchical Hinduism. [[[One reason why some Hindus stayed behind in Sindh after partition was because for them the probability of discrimination based on caste system was much lower here. Some Kohli and Bagri nomadic people even migrated to Sindh-Pakistan from India after the partition]]]

There is a hierarchy when it comes to Khandaans like Syeds, Pirs, Mirs, etc. Naturally they rank themselves high in the social order, but they don't necessarily rank high in the society, which is segregated more by wealth than Khaandan/Caste system. Generally, you would find different Khandaan/Caste and even religions coexist in one location with very cordial interactions between them and minimal discriminations. Problems arise when coexistence turns to cohabitation, i.e. marriages. The big khandaans look down upon marrying into khandaan - or caste - they deem lower than their's. Though, in recent times there has been a major shift in this pattern but there is still a long way to go.
 
.
that's not how caste system works, you have a misconception. few people will recognize Brahmins as "above" them—the main point of caste system is looking down upon others. Bahman is not a slur one usually calls others with derogatory connonations, that's reserved for other lower castes—like Chuhras, and many other famous ones.
You have created your own definition of the caste system.

Every heterogeneous society has communities that are looked down upon. Europeans historically (and currently) looking down upon Gypsies, Omanis looking down upon Khaddams, Amhara Ethiopians looking down upon Southern Ethiopians, etc... does not mean that these peoples are a part of some caste system, even when intermarriage between these groups is considered taboo. The communities that are looked down upon in Pakistan are menial and itinerant (eg. Gypsies) groups that have their origins in modern-day India.

The caste/varna system is a Brahmanic concept of hereditary class hierarchy with strict duties and conventions assigned to each Varna and no class-mobility.

The Biradari/Qabaila is a system of tribes, divided into clans. There is no social hierarchy, except one that can be gained and lost through renown and land-ownership. Occupations are not inherited, rather they are fluid, a Jatt can be a zamindar, merchant, soldier, farmer, etc...


this is common for many regions where Brahmins don't have a large population, nothing to do with "Indus region".
I wonder why Brahmins did not have a sizable population here? Scroll further below and you will find out.

that's exactly what a caste system is—enforced endogamy. if a Jatt Muslims daughter wants to marry a pious Muslim of a lower caste, will he allow that considering his piety or will she more likely be disgraced if not honour killed?
Endogamy is not a trait unique to the caste system and is found among all tribal/clan based societies, it is how these tribes and clans maintain themselves. Also endogamy is not enforced, just preferred. Inter-Biradari marriages are not uncommon, however marriages are mostly arranged.


but I doubt anyone before 1947, or even upto 1970 would have suggested the areas of Pakistan don't have caste system, and people there don't look down upon "lower castes"—the essence of caste system.
and surely they didn't simply vanish into thin air as soon as Islam came, and some totally different tribal system came into being.
for your theory to make sense, they would to be "tribes" since all the way back.
Exactly, the Biradari/Qabaila system of the Indus region has existed since ancient times and has it's origins in the tribal system of the early Indo-Aryans. The Caste System was developed within Brahmanism in modern-day North India as a means to maintain hierarchy over the native population, it had no hold over the Indus region.

Ancient Hindu texts stretching back to the Mahabharata forbid Brahmins from visiting the Indus region as their authority there is not respected and they are often even met with hostility.

Here are some of many excerpts by Brahmins describing the people and culture of the Indus region:

Madrakas are the people of North Punjab while the Sindhu-Sauviras are the people of Sindh and South Punjab.

"How, indeed, would the Madrakas and the Sindhu-Sauviras know anything of duty, being born, as they are, in a sinful country, being mlecchas in their practices, and being totally regardless of all (varna) duties?"

Aratta is a general term for the entire region. While Vahikas/Bahikas (meaning outsiders) are the inhabitants of the region.

''There where forests of Pilus stand, and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.''

"There where the five rivers flow just after issuing from the mountains, there among the Aratta-Vahikas, no Arya should dwell even for two days. There are two Pishacas named Vahi and Hika in the river Vipasa. The Vahikas are the offspring of those two Pishacas. They are not creatures created by the Creator. Being of such low origin, how can they be conversant with the duties ordained in the scriptures?"

"But on seeing the dharma practiced in the land of the five rivers, the grandfather cried, "Shame!". They are outcasts. They are born from servants. They are the performers of wicked deeds. That is the reason the grandfather condemned the dharma in the land of the five rivers. Though they followed their own dharma and that of their varna, he did not honour it."

"The Kauravas with the Pancalas, the Salwas, the Matsyas, the Naimishas, the Koshalas, the Kasapaundras, the Kalingas, the Magadhas, and the Cedis who are all highly blessed, know what the eternal religion is. The wicked even of these various countries know what religion is. The Vahikas, however, live without righteousness. Beginning with the Matsyas, the residents of the Kuru and the Pancala countries, the Naimishas as well and the other respectable peoples, the pious among all races are conversant with the eternal truths of religion. This cannot be said of the Madrakas and the crooked-hearted race that resides in the country of the five rivers."

"In days of yore, when the eternal religion was reverenced in all countries, the Grandsire, observing the practices of the country of the five rivers, cried fie on them. When even in the krita age, Brahman had censured the practices of those fallen people of evil deeds who were begotten by Shudras on others' wives, what would you now say to men in the world? Even thus did the Grandsire condemn the practices of the country of the five waters. When all people were observant of the duties of their respective (varna) orders, the Grandsire had to find fault with these men."


The tribes/peoples mentioned roughly comprised the entire Indus region.

"The regions are called by the name of Arattas. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. The lowest of brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other's sacrifices. They are all fallen and many amongst them have been begotten by Shudras upon other peoples' girls. The gods never accept any gifts from them. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices.'"

This excrept clearly highlights the lack of a caste system in the region and how the Brahmin considers it a despicable taboo:

'" I dwelt for a long time on a peak of the Himavat quite alone. Since then I have seen diverse countries following diverse religions. Never, however, have I seen all the people of a country act unrighteously. All the races I have met will admit that to be true religion which has been declared by persons conversant with the Vedas. Travelling through various countries following various religions, I at last, O king, came among the Vahikas. There I heard that one at first becomes a brahmana and then he becomes a kshatriya. Indeed, a Vahika would, after that, become a Vaishya, and then a Shudra, and then a barber. Having become a barber, he would then again become a brahmana. Returning to the status of a brahmana, he would again become a slave. One person in a family becomes a brahmana: all the others, falling off from virtue, act as they like. The Gandharas, the Madrakas, and the Vahikas of little understanding are even such. Having travelled through the whole world I heard of these practices, destructive of virtue, of these sinful irregularities amongst the Vahikas."



surely when Sindh and Punjab were Hindu, they had castes.
Sindh and Punjab never had a Hindu majority population. Mainstream Hinduism in either of these regions did not truly begin to spread until the late Bhakti movement.

Both Sindh and Punjab only had single short-lived Hindu dynasties each which emerged after Brahmin ministers usurped the Buddhist rulers.

The Brahmin Dynasty lasting from 632 to 712 CE was strongly resisted by the Buddhist-majority local population which was one of the reasons why it fell so easily to MBQ's invasion.

While the Hindu Shahis only managed to hold onto the Punjab proper for a mere 26 years.

Punjabi to sab zaat/caste hi kehtay hain baqi ka nhi keh skta

I have stated why Punjabis and Pakistanis in general refer to their tribe or clan as "caste":

Biradaris are often mistakenly referred to as "castes". This is because when the British invaded modern-day India during the 1750's, they integrated the caste system into the state institution. When they invaded and conquered modern-day Punjab and Pakistan in the 1840's, they enforced this system on the newly conquered territories. People had to register their "castes" which would influence everything from employment preference to legal rights.

Caste is not even a local word while Zaat is of Arabic origin that denotes tribe or clan.
 
Last edited:
.
Do you see different mosques for different clans?, Different schools?, different shops?, Forget that different neighborhoods?
yes, I do see general caste discrimination in Pakistan. even India doesn't have different schools or shops in most places now. I've heard that in Pakistan, many people don't eat from plates touched by certain castes. you act as if you know about all the discrimination, that no group is looked down upon generally by many other groups.
Why we are against calling it castes are cause this is our hertige and we don't want to lose it
When you called it castes than it comes with persecution of others, hierarchy based on birth and islamists hate that thing and slowly people will come to take away our hertige from us
what is the value of heritage, and if it's good or bad, and what to do with it, is upto Pakistanis to decide, I'm not advising anything, just putting out arguments against what I think is a misrepresentation of the caste system to claim that it doesn't exist in Pakistan.
Occupations are not inherited, rather they are fluid, a Jatt can be a zamindar, merchant, soldier, farmer, etc.
do you think this is not true of India? any caste can take up any occupation they want.
The caste/varna system is a Brahmanic concept of hereditary class hierarchy with strict duties and conventions assigned to each Varna and no class-mobility.
the caste system, as practiced in modern India, is simply a division of the population in 1000+ groups where each groups claims higher and higher status than any other—Rajputs claiming descent from all the legendary kings, Yadavs claiming descent from Yadu, etc etc., but where some groups are looked down upon by a majority of other groups, and are discriminated against. they may originally have something to do occupation, as many castes are named after occupation in Pakistan too, but those traditional occupations are long gone, only discrimination remains.

Zaat is of Arabic origin that denotes tribe or clan.
Zaat is the word used for "caste" all over India, the theory about it being a British invention or being innocuous makes no sense when you consider that. why do call it "zaat"? where is there discrimination against some "zaats"?
This excrept clearly highlights the lack of a caste system in the region and how the Brahmin considers it a despicable taboo:
I'm not sure what the Mahabharata excerpts are supposed to prove. at the one hand it says that the people of Indus themselves claim to be Hindu. the general condemnation about not following the "varna" system shows little—it would have been true of many regions. the varna system is not the same as the caste system, as nearly all castes would want to claim Kshatriya status, but that means little without outside recognition—the discrimination continues.
 
.
You have created your own definition of the caste system.

Every heterogeneous society has communities that are looked down upon. Europeans historically (and currently) looking down upon Gypsies, Omanis looking down upon Khaddams, Amhara Ethiopians looking down upon Southern Ethiopians, etc... does not mean that these peoples are a part of some caste system, even when intermarriage between these groups is considered taboo. The communities that are looked down upon in Pakistan are menial and itinerant (eg. Gypsies) groups that have their origins in modern-day India.

The caste/varna system is a Brahmanic concept of hereditary class hierarchy with strict duties and conventions assigned to each Varna and no class-mobility.

The Biradari/Qabaila is a system of tribes, divided into clans. There is no social hierarchy, except one that can be gained and lost through renown and land-ownership. Occupations are not inherited, rather they are fluid, a Jatt can be a zamindar, merchant, soldier, farmer, etc...



I wonder why Brahmins did not have a sizable population here? Scroll further below and you will find out.


Endogamy is not a trait unique to the caste system and is found among all tribal/clan based societies, it is how these tribes and clans maintain themselves. Also endogamy is not enforced, just preferred. Inter-Biradari marriages are not uncommon, however marriages are mostly arranged.





Exactly, the Biradari/Qabaila system of the Indus region has existed since ancient times and has it's origins in the tribal system of the early Indo-Aryans. The Caste System was developed within Brahmanism in modern-day North India as a means to maintain hierarchy over the native population, it had no hold over the Indus region.

Ancient Hindu texts stretching back to the Mahabharata forbid Brahmins from visiting the Indus region as their authority there is not respected and they are often even met with hostility.

Here are some of many excerpts by Brahmins describing the people and culture of the Indus region:

Madrakas are the people of North Punjab while the Sindhu-Sauviras are the people of Sindh and South Punjab.

"How, indeed, would the Madrakas and the Sindhu-Sauviras know anything of duty, being born, as they are, in a sinful country, being mlecchas in their practices, and being totally regardless of all (varna) duties?"

Aratta is a general term for the entire region. While Vahikas/Bahikas (meaning outsiders) are the inhabitants of the region.

''There where forests of Pilus stand, and those five rivers flow, viz., the Satadru, the Vipasa, the Iravati, the Candrabhaga, and the Vitasa and which have the Sindhu for their sixth, there in those regions removed from the Himavat, are the countries called by the name of the Arattas. Those regions are without virtue and religion. No one should go thither. The gods, the pitris, and the brahmanas, never accept gifts from those that are fallen, or those that are begotten by Shudras on the girls of other castes, or the Vahikas who never perform sacrifices and are exceedingly irreligious.''

"There where the five rivers flow just after issuing from the mountains, there among the Aratta-Vahikas, no Arya should dwell even for two days. There are two Pishacas named Vahi and Hika in the river Vipasa. The Vahikas are the offspring of those two Pishacas. They are not creatures created by the Creator. Being of such low origin, how can they be conversant with the duties ordained in the scriptures?"

"But on seeing the dharma practiced in the land of the five rivers, the grandfather cried, "Shame!". They are outcasts. They are born from servants. They are the performers of wicked deeds. That is the reason the grandfather condemned the dharma in the land of the five rivers. Though they followed their own dharma and that of their varna, he did not honour it."

"The Kauravas with the Pancalas, the Salwas, the Matsyas, the Naimishas, the Koshalas, the Kasapaundras, the Kalingas, the Magadhas, and the Cedis who are all highly blessed, know what the eternal religion is. The wicked even of these various countries know what religion is. The Vahikas, however, live without righteousness. Beginning with the Matsyas, the residents of the Kuru and the Pancala countries, the Naimishas as well and the other respectable peoples, the pious among all races are conversant with the eternal truths of religion. This cannot be said of the Madrakas and the crooked-hearted race that resides in the country of the five rivers."

"In days of yore, when the eternal religion was reverenced in all countries, the Grandsire, observing the practices of the country of the five rivers, cried fie on them. When even in the krita age, Brahman had censured the practices of those fallen people of evil deeds who were begotten by Shudras on others' wives, what would you now say to men in the world? Even thus did the Grandsire condemn the practices of the country of the five waters. When all people were observant of the duties of their respective (varna) orders, the Grandsire had to find fault with these men."


The tribes/peoples mentioned roughly comprised the entire Indus region.

"The regions are called by the name of Arattas. The people residing there are called the Vahikas. The lowest of brahmanas also are residing there from very remote times. They are without the Veda and without knowledge, without sacrifice and without the power to assist at other's sacrifices. They are all fallen and many amongst them have been begotten by Shudras upon other peoples' girls. The gods never accept any gifts from them. The Prasthalas, the Madras, the Gandharas, the Arattas, those called Khasas, the Vasatis, the Sindhus and the Sauviras are almost as blamable in their practices.'"

This excrept clearly highlights the lack of a caste system in the region and how the Brahmin considers it a despicable taboo:

'" I dwelt for a long time on a peak of the Himavat quite alone. Since then I have seen diverse countries following diverse religions. Never, however, have I seen all the people of a country act unrighteously. All the races I have met will admit that to be true religion which has been declared by persons conversant with the Vedas. Travelling through various countries following various religions, I at last, O king, came among the Vahikas. There I heard that one at first becomes a brahmana and then he becomes a kshatriya. Indeed, a Vahika would, after that, become a Vaishya, and then a Shudra, and then a barber. Having become a barber, he would then again become a brahmana. Returning to the status of a brahmana, he would again become a slave. One person in a family becomes a brahmana: all the others, falling off from virtue, act as they like. The Gandharas, the Madrakas, and the Vahikas of little understanding are even such. Having travelled through the whole world I heard of these practices, destructive of virtue, of these sinful irregularities amongst the Vahikas."




Sindh and Punjab never had a Hindu majority population. Mainstream Hinduism in either of these regions did not truly begin to spread until the late Bhakti movement.

Both Sindh and Punjab only had single short-lived Hindu dynasties each which emerged after Brahmin ministers usurped the Buddhist rulers.

The Brahmin Dynasty lasting from 632 to 712 CE was strongly resisted by the Buddhist-majority local population which was one of the reasons why it fell so easily to MBQ's invasion.

While the Hindu Shahis only managed to hold onto the Punjab proper for a mere 26 years.



I have stated why Punjabis and Pakistanis in general refer to their tribe or clan as "caste":



Caste is not even a local word while Zaat is of Arabic origin that denotes tribe or clan.
kg39rcf8kym81.jpg

5zsozsz7kym81.jpg
kgqbrft8kym81.jpg

butthurt over eating cows, drinking etc in Mahabharata
 
.
as many castes are named after occupation in Pakistan too
There are so many castes in Pakistan named after professions
Again, people here are confusing the caste/varna system with common social stratifications found in every society.

What you're describing are "Kammis" which are guilds. Guilds are/were present in every society; English surnames such as Barber, Fisher, Hunter, Butler, Smith, Walker, Clarke, Cooper, Ward, Baker, etc... are all equivalences of ours Tarkhan, Teli, Lohar, Nai, Mochi, Dhobi, etc... except that modern Western societies no longer retain hereditary guilds.

These are not castes.
 
.
yes, I do see general caste discrimination in Pakistan. even India doesn't have different schools or shops in most places now. I've heard that in Pakistan, many people don't eat from plates touched by certain castes. you act as if you know about all the discrimination, that no group is looked down upon generally by many other groups.
Then you have heard wrong. Never heard of such nonsense about not eating from plates touched by certain groups.

Zaat is the word used for "caste" all over India, the theory about it being a British invention or being innocuous makes no sense when you consider that. why do call it "zaat"? where is there discrimination against some "zaats"?
Zaat is an Arabic word and is used to denote clan or tribe. What you're saying may be true for NW India, but the rest of India cannot even pronounce 'Zaat' yet use it to denote caste.

The word use for caste in India is "Jati".

at the one hand it says that the people of Indus themselves claim to be Hindu
Where does it say that?

he varna system is not the same as the caste system
The Indian caste system is the Varna system. One is an English term, the other is Sanskrit.
 
.
Never heard of such nonsense about not eating from plates touched by certain groups.
many people from dominant castes don't hear about all this. but many Pakistanis reading here will know about it. ask elders in your family if they've heard about it.

Where does it say that?
nevermind, I had another quote in mind.
The word use for caste in India is "Jati".
both terms are used all the way to UP/Bihar, if not Bengal too.
The Indian caste system is the Varna system. One is an English term, the other is Sanskrit.
no, the varna system isn't the caste system. the varna system talks of 4 varnas, and people outside the varna. the caste system has thousands of groups that are organised in dominance, not religious hierarchies. it's practiced by many converted Christian and among many Muslims too.
 
.
no, the varna system isn't the caste system. the varna system talks of 4 varnas, and people outside the varna. the caste system has thousands of groups that are organised in dominance, not religious hierarchies. it's practiced by many converted Christian and among many Muslims too.
Caste system is a downstream of the varna system. I can see how hard you're trying to obfuscate the complicity of Hindu doctrine in the beastly caste system, because like most so-called agnostic and atheist Hindus, your first instinct is to defend the beastly practices of your religion.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom