https://tribune.com.pk/story/444417/is-the-pakistan-army-martial/
So a random Columnist from the Tribune has decided to bark about Punjabis allegedly being weak in this article, let's see what he has to say:
"Are Punjabi Muslims martial? Do they have a history of war and conquest or at least of resistance to conquest? I ask because there’s no evidence of their martial character in our history. No general, no
subedar, no
thanedar, no
wazir, no
bakhshi of the Mughal empire was a Punjabi Muslim so far as I know."
He has already made multiple mistakes, first of all, he's distinguishing Muslim Punjabis from other Punjabis, but not saying that we can claim Muslim history. How is this fair? If religion is what matters in your eyes, Muslims have a plethora of heroes to choose from. And if ethnicity matters, Punjabis also have a plethora of heroes to choose from. You cannot have it both ways, pick one or the other to identify us with.
Secondly, he's just flat out wrong. Shahbaz Kamboj was a Muslim Punjabi general in the Mughal Empire, and was considered among Akbar's finest soldiers. Wazir Khan was also a Muslim Punjabi Wazir (as the name would suggest) during the rule of Shah Jahan. There were also other Muslim Punjabis that held esteemed positions in the Mughal Empire, such as Sarang Khan who was given the title of "Sultan" by Babur for fighting so fiercely alongside him, and Adina Beg who acted as the Mughal governor of the Punjab.
"The fact is that the Punjabi Muslim is a convert mainly from the peasantry (Jat) which is not martial."
Here, the author blatantly insults the Jat community (which I am not a part of, but never the less, shall defend). What he doesn't realise is that much of the Sikh Empire, the most powerful empire in the region from that time, not only came from the Punjab but also consisted of many Punjabi Jats. So much for Jats being "peasants". Raja Rasalu, a famous Punjabi king from the pre-Islamic era, is himself said to have been a Jat. For goodness sake, at the Battle of Saragarhi, 21 Jats faced off against over 10,000 enemy combatants!
"In his Tuzuk, Jahangir makes the remark in passing that the Gakkhars are warlike, but adds that they only fight among themselves. Meanwhile Rajput, Afghan, Maratha, Sikh, Jat (Hindu) and tribal Hindu generals all fought for and against Mughal armies"
Here, the author manages to refute himself, by showing that the Gakhars (a prominent tribe from the Punjab) were historically regarded as warlike, and that the Jats, a community he called peasants, also fought for and against the Mughal Empire.
"What exactly did the Punjabi Muslim do? Invaders who got past Peshawar could then only be stopped at Karnal or Panipat because they went through Punjab undisturbed. It is true that the armies of both Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali were harassed in Punjab on their return with Mughal booty, but their attackers were Sikhs, not Muslims. Punjab was a quiet state. Punjabi Muslims neither rebelled against Mughal Delhi nor fought any invader whether Afghan or Persian. Was this because the Punjabi did not want to fight other Muslims? Not really, because he did not even resist being conquered easily by Sikhs."
This is wholly incorrect. Many Muslim Punjabis let these Muslim rulers go through simply because they had no reason to oppose them. They were seen by many to not be anymore oppressive towards the common masses than the rulers they came to replace (in fact, they were often much less oppressive). Many Muslim Punjabis also saw it in their interests to side with these conquerors, for example, Muqarrab Khan, a Muslim Punjabi warlord, fought alongside both Nader Shah and Ahmad Shah Durrani against their enemies. Others, like celebrated mystics such as Ahmad Sirhindi and Fariduddin Ganjshakar, supported them (the Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate respectively) as they saw these rulers as enforcers of Islamic rule over the region.
Never the less, some Muslim Punjabis did oppose these rulers once they crossed the boundaries. Abdullah Bhatti was a famous anti-Mughal rebel from the Punjab, Muqarrab Khan fought against the Sikh Empire, as did Ahmad Khan Karral who also fought against the British Empire, there was also the Battle of Jhelum that took place during 1857, the Gakhar rebellion against the Sur Empire, etc.
And it's not like Muslim Punjabis didn't fight on our own, for example, the Khokhars ended up converting to Islam and formed a sizeable empire that, at one point, even controlled Delhi.
"It is the Englishman who 150 years ago gave the Punjabi Muslim a rifle and taught him how to use it. But this did not require any martial background"
As if being an armed soldier is somehow an easy job. If the author feels it's so easy and doesn't require much skill, maybe he should go out there and see how good of a rifleman he can be.
"It is only after this formation of the modern regiments, that Punjabi Muslims are called martial by writers like GF MacMunn."
Again, no. The author provided a clear cut example of Shah Jahan calling a group of Muslim Punjabis (Gakhars, to be precise) warriors.
"After the English left, the record of Punjabi Muslims at war under their own generals is not sterling."
So, crushing an enemy invasion in 17 days, ruling over a foreign territory for more than 2 decades, and taking control of multiple peaks in Kargil (all whilst being heavily outnumbered and sometimes even out-equipped) doesn't quite cut it for Mr Patel? Does the fierceness of soldiers like Shabbir Sharif, Muhammad Tufail or Raja Aziz Bhatti who gave their lives for Pakistan not quite cut it for him either? What about the Punjabi volunteers who went to Afghanistan and helped crush the USSR? I guess none of these examples are good enough for Mr Patel, or, he is one of the most ignorant people I have ever come across.
"Against the Pashtun Talib the record is not encouraging, despite the thousands of martyrs."
As if the Pakistani army vs the Taliban is a Punjabi vs Pashtun battle, both sides are multi-ethnic.
"Nadir Shah said of Indian Muslims"
How is this relevant in a discussion about Punjabis? Does the author seriously want to lump all Muslims from the sub-continent together? In that case, why not let Muslim Punjabis claim Rajasthani Ghazi Miyan, or others like him? The author seems to be conflating and distinguishing between the two when it is convenient.
"This is fine and many states of India are not martial. Few soldiers were produced by Bengal’s Hindus for instance, and not many by Gujarat even today. But they don’t have the militant bombast of the Punjabi Muslim (who apparently equals 10 Hindus). I’m just wondering what this bombast is based on because I cannot figure it out."
Come to the Punjab, say this in public, and you'll quickly find out.
For further reading on the individuals/groups/topics discussed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahbaz_Khan_Kamboh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wazir_Khan_(Lahore)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adina_Beg
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...ved=0ahUKEwiQ3s-U98vjAhUipnEKHQ5cABIQ6AEIKzAA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_Sarang_Khan
http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Gakhar.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasrath_Khokhar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Sirhindi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fariduddin_Ganjshakar
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Khan_Kharal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulla_Bhatti
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi
@The Eagle @Windjammer @WAJsal @Oscar @Indus Pakistan @OsmanAli98 @Dewaneh
@PAKISTANFOREVER @Waqas @Rusty @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @war&peace @waraich66 @doorstar @Talwar e Pakistan @Path-Finder @ziaulislam @Samlee @Khafee @Dubious @Zarvan @Champion_Usmani @maximuswarrior @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Azadkashmir @Sher Shah Awan @dexter @IbnAbdullah @Dalit @airomerix @Myth_buster_1 @Muslimrenaissance
