Who Is A Punjabi?

[amar_jkp]

A Punjabi is someone whose mother tongue is Punjabi, who speaks it with a sense of pride and teaches it to her or his children. Moreover, this person should be proud of the Punjabi culture, its heritage and seeks to actively promote the interests of Punjab and Punjabis in general. I believe that a great majority of Punjabis don’t know what it means to be one? For most of us being a Punjabi does not mean the same thing as being a Bengali means to the Bengalis or being French means to Frenchmen and women. In Punjab of Pakistan, Punjabi is not taught in schools, and it is not the official language of the state.1 In the Punjab of India, the actions of Punjabi Hindus need special mention. Nowhere in human history has a group of people disowned their mother tongue. This singular event is unprecedented. Since 1947 Punjabi Hindus have been consistently deriding the culture of their ancestors and making every effort to retard the growth of Punjabi language and culture, and the economy of the state.

The Indian State of Punjab was recognized as a bilingual state with distinct Punjabi and Hindi speaking regions and a language formula known as the Sachar Formula was announced in October 1949 to solve the language problem. According to this formula Punjabi in Gurmukhi script was accepted as the medium of instruction in schools. It made the Punjabi Hindu elite berserk — all sections of the Hindus opposed the implementation of this formula vehemently. They rejected both the Punjabi language and the Gurmukhi script. The attitude of Punjabi Hindus toward Punjabi language can be better understood by reading the words of Sir Gokul Chand Narang the author of Transformation of Sikhism.2

Protesting the use of Punjabi and the Gurmukhi script, Gokul Chand Narang, a rabid communalist lamented, “This formula was the first victory of the Sikhs after the partition of the country as it gave recognition and prominence to a language and script never officially recognized except a few years before in a part of the Sikh State of Patiala.” It is worth noting that Gokul Chand Narang was born and raised in West Punjab. Moreover, the dedication of his book reads: “This book is with deepest reverence dedicated to the memory of my father Lala Mool Raj Narang who was the first to have inspired me with interest in Sikh scriptures and Sikh history.”

[amar_jkp]

Why did an intelligent and learned man like Narang renounce his mother tongue and heritage?

This is not the first time that Punjabi Hindu elite have disowned their mother tongue. Previously, they did it after the Muslim conquest of Punjab, and Guru Nanak (1469-1539) had exposed this hypocrisy. The khatris had abdicated their duty of protecting the honor of the country and its citizens. Instead, they had adopted the manners and language of their conquerors and worked for them in persecuting their co-religionists. The Guru rebuked the khatris (AGGS, p 663) for their actions.

Commenting on the atrocities committed on the Hindus by bigoted Muslim rulers, Guru Nanak exposed the nexus between these rulers, the khatris and the Brahmins in a biting political satire. It was the bigoted Muslim ruler, who was responsible for the persecution of Hindus, but the khatri officials executed the orders, and the Brahmin priests approved the doings of the khatris: “The man eater is the one who performs namaz (Muslim prayer). Who carves out the flesh for him is the one who wears the sacred thread around his neck (khatri). The Brahmin blows the conch in the khatri’s house to sanctify his doings (AGGS, P 471).”

The well-known journalist Kuldip Nayar and former Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral have been lately beating the drums of Punjabiat (Punjabi heritage). Notwithstanding his loud proclamation of Punjabiat, while responding to members of the Indian parliament, who insisted that he should speak in Hindi, Gujral said, “My mother-tongue is Hindi, so I would love to speak in Hindi. Since these proceedings are seen and heard throughout the country, I wish I may be heard by all through English.”3 It is worth noting that Gujral grew up in Jhelum (in Punjab of Pakistan), so it is doubtful that his mother tongue is Hindi. Was he telling the truth to the members of the Indian parliament?

Later that year when the Queen of England visited India, she expressed her desire to pay homage at Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple) and the Jallianwala Bagh Memorial. But Gujral tried his best to persuade her to cancel the visit.4 Jallianwalla Bagh Memorial was built in honor of all Punjabis who were massacred by Genral Dyer on the day of Baisakhi, April 13, 1919 (379 were killed and over two thousand wounded). Golden Temple is a prominent Sikh gurdwara and most of the victims of Jallianwala Bagh massacre were Sikhs.5 Perhaps, Golden Temple and Jallianwalla Bagh are not part of Gujral’s Punjabiat as he is a staunch Arya Smajist! How could an Arya Smajist tolerate that a British monarch should pay homage at the Golden Temple and the Jallianwala Bagh?

Kuldip Nayar does not hide his feelings about Punjab and Punjabi. He stunned the audience at the Chief Khalsa Diwan’s Annual Meeting held in November 2002 by proposing that “Punjabi Suba (state)” should be disbanded and merged with Haryana and Himachal Pardesh.6 However, he did not make any adverse comments when very recently three Hindi Sates — Uttar Pardesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pardesh were partitioned to create three new states whereas “Punjabi Suba” was created in 1966 from a bilingual Hindi/Punjabi state of erstwhile Punjab. Neither Nayar nor any other Punjabi Hindu has ever suggested that Haryana and Himachal Pardesh should be merged since both are Hindi speaking states. Nayar is a well known Indian journalist, but he never wrote a word against Punjabi Hindus who renounced their mother tongue and culture.

[amar_jkp]

Recently, pretending to be a friend of Sikhs, he asked a rhetorical question: “Nanavati Commission should have investigated, when the Indian Constitution says Sikhs are Hindus then why were they [sikhs] targeted as a community after Indira Gandhi’s assassination?”7 What an absurd and insulting statement? An honest man would say why any Indian citizen should have been targeted and brutally killed? And why Sikhs, who have made it clear since 1950, that they should not be classified as Hindus in the Indian Constitution? It is abundantly clear that Kuldip Nayar’s peace and friendship overtures to Pakistan and his credentials as a human rights activist are as bogus as his Punjabiat.

A shorter version of this article was posted on the Sikh-Diaspora Yahoo e-group by a member of that discussion group. It seems that this brief article, which points out the attitude of Punjabis toward Punjabi language and culture, really upset Jagpal Tiwana who is a member of that Yahoo e-group. He ridiculed the article, and went out of his way to attack Dr. Sangat Singh. Tiwana wrote:

“If we go by the definition and reasoning of Dr. Baldev Singh, not many Punjabis are left behind in this world. Punjabi Hindus are not Punjabis because what they have done to Punjabi is unprecedented in the history of mankind. Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa and the Akalis are not Punjabis because they did nothing to promote Punjabi in the last two decades. Tarlochan Singh is not Punjabi because he worked with Giani Zail Singh. So anybody, Sikh or Hindu who worked with Giani Zail Singh is not a Punjabi.

Kuldip Nayar and all the Sikhs and Hindus who think Punjabi Suba was a mistake because it has narrowed the development of Punjab, are not Punjabis. Partap Singh Kairon and all Congress Sikhs who opposed the creation of Punjabi Suba were not Punjabis. Kuldip Nayar and other Hindus who condemned the pogrom and deposed before the Nanvati Commission in favor of Sikhs are not honest. Their Punjabiat is phony.

Guru Nanak Dev University in recognition of Kuldip Nayar’s contribution appointed him member of the Senate, Punjabi University appointed him member of the Senate and Syndicate, and only a week back conferred fellowship on him. His contribution was also recognized by SGPC with a special award. Either these institutions did not have access to the material, which Sangat Singh and Baldev Singh found or they were also promoting anti-Punjabiat. Punjabi is not the official language in West Punjab. So all Muslims in Western Punjab are not Punjabis. And Sangat Singh’s book is one of the sources for Dr. Baldev Singh’ article.”

Allow me to respond to Tiwana’s criticism and his attempt to manipulate the issue for reasons better known to him. Had Tiwana not gone out of his way to attack Dr. Sangat Singh, I would not have bothered to comment on his letter posted on January 17, 2004. In my missive I have cited four references and only one is from Sangat Singh’s The Sikhs in History. Perhaps my writing touched a raw nerve in Tiwana, or he found it difficult to face the truth. Some time ago Amandeep Singh Grewal became the target of these people when he exposed the criminal and degenerate elements within Sikh society during a discussion on the Sikh-Diaspora Yahoo e-group. I wish Mr. Tiwana had read my missive carefully before commenting on it.

My definition of a Punjabi is applicable to any linguistic nationality. What is Tiwana’s definition of a Punjabi? Nowhere did I state that people of Western Punjab, Punjabi Hindus, Dhindsa, Akalis, Tarlochan Singh, Kuldip Nayar or any Hindu or Sikh who worked for Giani Zail Singh, Partap Singh Kairon and all Congress Sikhs or Hindus who opposed the creation of a Punjabi Suba are not Punjabis? I urge Mr. Tiwana to read my views carefully.

[amar_jkp]

I exposed the fraud committed by the International Punjabi Society, the so-called champions of Punjabiat. Moreover, I emphasized that most Punjabis don’t know what it means to be one? Would Mr. Tiwana point out any linguistic nationality, which has renounced its mother tongue, does not teach it in schools, and where parents don’t teach it to their children? Does Mr. Tiwana deny that Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa’s Akali party or Tarlochan Singh’s boss Giani Zail Singh were not responsible for the deaths in Punjab over the last two decades. Why should this truth upset him?

I would like him to read Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh Jaijee and Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab. Tiwana’s favorite historian Khushwant Singh toured Punjab with K. P. S. Gill and later, at a press conference, vigorously defended the extra-judicial killings of Sikhs by saying “police had no option but to take law into their own hands.” However, after reading Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab, Khushwant Singh’s dormant conscience suddenly woke up and he whispered, “These stories are spine-chilling, Punjab police has to do some explaining.”

Does Mr. Tiwana deny that Kuldip Nayar did not make the statements I mentioned? Can Mr. Tiwana point out any time when Kuldip Nayar criticized Punjabi Hindus for renouncing their mother tongue? Can Mr. Tiwana prove that I. K. Gujral did not assert in his speech, in the Indian parliament, that his mother tongue is Hindi?

Let Mr. Nayar and Mr. Gujral respond to my views. I wonder why people like Nayar and Gujral need someone like Tiwana to defend them? What does Kuldip Nayar’s appointment to the Senate of GNDU or the conferring of fellowship on him by the Punjabi University have to do with my views about him. Many non-deserving people have been appointed as vice-chancellors at these universities. Honoring Kuldip Nayar by SGPC does not mean much. The SGPC, headed by (late) Gurcharan Singh Tohra, is reminiscent of the days when Arur Singh Sarbrah and the head “priests” of Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple) conferred a robe of honor on General Dyer who massacred unarmed Punjabis, mostly Sikhs, at Jallianwala Bagh on the day of Baisakhi, April 13, 1919.

What is wrong with Sangat Singh’s book? I have cited Sangat Singh’s work as a reference to the massacre of Jallianwala Bagh. Does Mr. Tiwana think that the Jallainwala Bagh massacre did not take place? Did Sangat Singh make it up?

Sangat Singh has pointed out the possibility of the family link between Jawahar Lal Nehru and Raj Kaul, the son of Gangu (Gangadhar Kaul), who served Guru Gobind Singh and later betrayed his mother and two younger sons by handing them to the Mughal authorities. Raj Kaul was granted land (jagir) on a canal (nehr) at Andha Mughal by Farrukhsiyar. Raj Kaul adopted Nehru as the family name from nehr.8 No Hindu historian has challenged Sangat Singh on this point except people like Tiwana.9

[Amandeep Hindustani]

A Punjabi is someone whose mother tongue is Punjabi, who speaks it with a sense of pride and teaches it to her or his children. Moreover, this person should be proud of the Punjabi culture, its heritage and seeks to actively promote the interests of Punjab and Punjabis in general. I believe that a great majority of Punjabis dont know what it means to be one? For most of us being a Punjabi does not mean the same thing as being a Bengali means to the Bengalis or being French means to Frenchmen and women. In Punjab of Pakistan, Punjabi is not taught in schools, and it is not the official language of the state.1 In the Punjab of India, the actions of Punjabi Hindus need special mention. Nowhere in human history has a group of people disowned their mother tongue. This singular event is unprecedented. Since 1947 Punjabi Hindus have been consistently deriding the culture of their ancestors and making every effort to retard the growth of Punjabi language and culture, and the economy of the state.

The Indian State of Punjab was recognized as a bilingual state with distinct Punjabi and Hindi speaking regions and a language formula known as the Sachar Formula was announced in October 1949 to solve the language problem. According to this formula Punjabi in Gurmukhi script was accepted as the medium of instruction in schools. It made the Punjabi Hindu elite berserk all sections of the Hindus opposed the implementation of this formula vehemently. They rejected both the Punjabi language and the Gurmukhi script. The attitude of Punjabi Hindus toward Punjabi language can be better understood by reading the words of Sir Gokul Chand Narang the author of Transformation of Sikhism.2

Protesting the use of Punjabi and the Gurmukhi script, Gokul Chand Narang, a rabid communalist lamented, This formula was the first victory of the Sikhs after the partition of the country as it gave recognition and prominence to a language and script never officially recognized except a few years before in a part of the Sikh State of Patiala. It is worth noting that Gokul Chand Narang was born and raised in West Punjab. Moreover, the dedication of his book reads: This book is with deepest reverence dedicated to the memory of my father Lala Mool Raj Narang who was the first to have inspired me with interest in Sikh scriptures and Sikh history.

Is your mother tongue punjabi?

[Amandeep Hindustani]

Of course we rejected the Gurmukhi script as you would reject the shahmukhi and devangiri script.

[amar_jkp]

Punjab is for Punjabis . Urdu vaalas have gone to Pakistan now its time that Hindi vaallas leave for Haryana and Himachal.

[Amandeep Hindustani]

Punjab is for Punjabis . Urdu vaalas have gone to Pakistan now its time that Hindi vaallas leave for Haryana and Himachal.

You did not answer my question, is your mother tongue Punjabi?

And why is your state and its people named by the Arabs?

[Koi]

And why is your state and its people named by the Arabs?

Interesting...please explain. How so?

[Amandeep Hindustani]

From what I've read the Arabs or Persians named the people and state. Other theories include that the name comes from the Sanskrit word panchad. But we do know it's ancient name from the scriptures is Sapta Sindu the land of seven rivers.

Don't worry about the 7 rivers it was way before your time.

[Koi]

From what I've read the Arabs or Persians named the people and state. Other theories include that the name comes from the Sanskrit word panchad. But we do know it's ancient name from the scriptures is Sapta Sindu the land of seven rivers.

Don't worry about the 7 rivers it was way before your time.

Since I'm not even 30 yet, I'm sure it was !

I suppose the "ab" in Punjab is a farsi (root Arabic) word. However, the Panj would come from root Sanskrit, so I'm not sure how Arabs would solely be responsible for naming Punjab.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Koi

[Amandeep Hindustani]

I think the title of this thread should be "Who is a "Sapta Sindhu"

HOLY COW! (No pun intended)

The word "Sindhu" is awfully close to the word "Hindu" no...

[amar_jkp]

I think the title of this thread should be "Who is a "Sapta Sindhu"

HOLY COW! (No pun intended)

The word "Sindhu" is awfully close to the word "Hindu" no...

What is the meaning of “Hindu”?

In his column “Who is a Hindu? Who is not?” published in the India Tribune (September 28, 2002), Mr. Niranjan Shah made the assertion that like Jains and Buddhists, Sikhs are also Hindus. In my response, I pointed out that Guru Nanak rejected all the essentials of Hinduism; therefore, it is absurd to regard Sikhs as Hindus and Sikhism as a sect or an offshoot of Hinduism. Besides, I made brief comments on the meaning of the word Hindu. But the India Tribune editor published only a small portion of my response and omitted the bulk of the article and the comments on the meaning of the word Hindu. Later, I published the article on SikhSpectrum.com, November 2003 under the heading “ Indian Media and Minorities.” Recently, I received feedback from readers suggesting that I should edit and revise my previous article to further clarify this subject.

It is regrettable that a vast majority of Indians fail to know that the word Hindu is not recorded in any of the so-called Hindu scriptures like Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranas etc. However, pseudo-historians as well as the Hindutva zealots claim that the word “Hindu” is a corrupted version of “Sindhu”, the ancient name for the river Sindh (Indus) that currently originates in India and flows through Pakistan. And mind boggling, absurd, and convoluted explanations are suggested to account for the phonetic disfiguration of “Sindhu” to “Hindu.”

Before I discuss this issue allow me to share with you some pertinent comments on this topic by other scholars:

1. Harjot Oberoi, The Construction of Religious Boundaries, Oxford University Press, 1994, p.16

That term was first used by the Achaemenid Persians to describe all those people who lived on or beyond the river Sindhu or Indus. Therefore, at one stage the word Hindu, as an ethno-geographic category, came to englobe all those who lived in India without any distinction.

2. V. Jayaram, “The Meaning, Definition and the Origin of the Word Hindu.” Taken from: www.hinduwebsite.com/hindu/h_meaning.asp

The word “Hindu” is not a Sanskrit word. It is not found in any of the thousands of native dialects and languages of India. Neither is it a religious word. It is a secular word whose origin is rooted in the language of ancient Persians, who supposedly said to have shared common ancestry with ancient Indians. It was practically unknown in India until the medieval period, although it was used in several countries outside the Indian subcontinent from earlier time. It is said that Persians who were familiar with the Indian subcontinent, used to refer to the Indus River as Shindu, a major river that still flows in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent, partly in India and partly in Pakistan. However, due to language barrier, they could not pronounce the letter “S” correctly in their native tongue and mispronounced it as “H”. Thus for the ancient Persians the word “Shindu” became “Hindu”.

For a long time for the native Indians, the Indian subcontinent was Bharta, the land founded by the famous king Bharta, the progenitor of Bharta clan. Literally translated, the word “Bharta” meant lover of knowledge and the people inhabiting the land considered themselves as such. They believed the religion they followed was an eternal religion and called it as “sanatana dharma”, which meant the same.

It is interesting to know that the word “Hindu” is neither Sanskrit nor Dravidian and it did not originate in India.

3. Sita Ram Goel, “Appendix 3 – Meaning of the Word Hindu.” Taken from: www.voiceofdharma.com/books/htepmles2/app3.htm

A close study of literary and epigraphic sources shows that the word “Hindu” has appeared in our indigenous languages and popular parlance in a comparatively recent period, keeping in view the long span of our history. We do not find this word in any indigenous language prior to the establishment of Islamic rule in the thirteenth century. Even after that, the word was used rather sparsely in the local literature. Monier-Williams who compiled his famous dictionary from a large range of Sanskrit literature, could not find any indigenous root for this word. He says explicitly that the word is derived “from the Persian Hindu”. Dictionaries of all indigenous languages say the same. So also the dictionaries of European languages.

The word “Hinduism” has been added to our vocabulary at a still more recent stage. It has been contributed by the discipline of Indology in the modern West. And the word gained wide currency in this country simply because the leaders of our national reawakening in the second half of the nineteenth century espoused it as expressive of our national identity as well as our spiritual and cultural greatness. These leaders, down to Mahatma Gandhi, were not prepared to concede that Hinduism did not include Buddhism, or Jainism, or, for that matter, Sikhism.

Going back to the pre-Islamic period in our own country, we find that our ancestors shared in common a name for their homeland. That was Bhãratavar” which comprised at that time the present-day Seistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh. They also shared in common a name for the spiritual-cultural complex to which they subscribed. That was Sanãtana Dharma, which covered Brahmanism, Buddhism, Jainism, and also what is now known as Animism or tribal religion. But there is no evidence, literary or epigraphic, that they shared in common a name for themselves as a people. Some Purãnas say that “Bhãratavar” is the land of the bhãratî santatih. The expression, however, is found nowhere else in the vast literature which has come to us from those times. In any case, this much is quite certain that our ancestors in those times did not use the word “Hindu” for describing themselves collectively. Hiuen Tsang who visited this country between AD 630 and 645 says that while the word “Shin-tu” (Chine-se for “Hindu”) could be heard outside our borders, it was unknown within the country.

Of course, some scholars of Hindutva have tried to trace the word “Hindu” to Saptasindhu which is mentioned in the Rigveda on several occasions. They want this word to have an indigenous as well as an ancient ring. The intention is understandable. But the exercise has remained forced, if nor far-fetched. Firstly, it does not notice that the expression used in the Rigveda is not Saptasindhu but Saptasaindhvah. Secondly, it ignores the fact that the Rigveda is not quite clear whether the expression stands for a country, or for a people, or simply for seven rivers in the Punjab. The expression seems to mean different things in different contexts. Thirdly, it does not explain why the change from “Sindhu” to “Hindu” took such a long time to surface in our indigenous languages. Lastly, and more significantly, it has not taken into account the fact that our countrymen were never known as Hindus in Southeast Asia in the pre-Islamic period, although they had a large presence there since centuries before the birth of Christ. There is, therefore, no running away from the fact that the word “Hindu” occurs for the first time in the Avesta of the ancient Iranians who used this word for designating this country as well as its people. They did not have to coin this word out of thin air. It was simply their way of pronouncing the word “Sindhu”, the name of the mighty river which has always been a major landmark for travellers to this country from the north and the west. To start with, the word seems to have been used for provinces and the people in the vicinity of the Sindhu. But in due course, it was extended to cover all parts of this country and all its people. The word also spread to countries to the north and west of Iran. The ancient Greeks were quite familiar with the words “Indus” and “Indoi” – their way of pronouncing “Sindhu” and “Sindhîs”. The ancient Arabs, Turks (Sakas, KuSãNas, etc.), Mongolian (HûNas, Kirãtas, etc.) and the Chinese were also familiar with the word, sometimes in their own variations on it such as “Shin-tu”. It may thus be said that the word “Hindu” had acquired a national connotation, since the days of the Avesta, although in the eyes of only the foreigners. At the same time, it may be noted that the word was oblivious of the fact that “Hindus” were organized in numerous castes, and subscribed to many religious sects.

[amar_jkp]

Harjot Oberoi does not say why the Achaemenid Persians used the word Hindu to describe all people who lived on or beyond the river Sindhu or Indus. But both Jayaram and Goel assert that the Persians used the word Hindu because they mispronounced the word Shindu, as Hindu, due to phonetic difficulty. Further, they claim that the ancient name of the Indian-subcontinent was Bharta or Bhartavar and the religion of it people was eternal religion – “Snatana Dharma.” Notwithstanding the claims of these three authors, there is very little reliable information about the history of Indian subcontinent from ancient times to the Muslim conquest of Indian-subcontinent that started in the eighth century. Moreover, Indians did not write their history and whatever small information we have about ancient India comes from the writings of Greeks, Chinese, Muslims and Europeans. First, there is no evidence that the Indian subcontinent was ever called Bharta or Bhartavar. Had it been so, its neighbors/foreigners would have called it Bharta or Bhartavar as these words are not difficult to pronounce. However, Bharatvarsha is the name of a mythical land described in an ancient text. Al-Biruni (973-1048/49 CE), the renowned Indologist came to India in the wake of the invading forces of Mahmud of Ghazni in the early eleventh century. He stayed many years in India studying Indian people, their religion, scriptures and culture. He used the word Bharta several times for the Epic Mahabharata and also writes about Bhartavarsha as: In the book of the Rishi Bhuvnakosa we read that the inhabitable world stretches from Himavant towards the south, and is called Bharatvarsha, so called from a man Bharta, who ruled over them and provided them. The inhabitants of this oikumene [inhabited part of the earth] are those to whom alone reward and punishment in another life is destined. It is divided into nine parts, called Navakhanda-prathma, i. e. the primary nine parts. Between each two parts there is sea, which they traverse from one khanda to another. The breadth of the inhabitable world from north to south is 1000 yojana [Yojana is a Vedic measure of distance used in ancient India. The exact measurement is disputed amongst scholars with distances being given between 6 to 15 km (4 and 9 miles)]. By “Himavant” the author means the northern mountains, where the world, in consequence of the cold, ceases to be inhabitable. Therefore all civilization must of necessity be south of these mountains. His words, that the inhabitants are subject to reward and punishment, indicate that there are other people not subject to it. These beings he must either raise from the degree of man to that of angels, who, in consequence of the simplicity of the elements they are composed of and purity of their nature, never disobey a divine order, being always willing to worship; or must degrade them to the degree of irrational animals. According to him, therefore, there are no human beings outside the oikoumene (i.e. Bhatarvarsha). Bharatvarsha is not India alone, as Hindus think, according to them their country is the world and their race the only race of mankind; for India is not traversed by an ocean separating one khanda from another. (Qeyamuddin Ahmad, Ed., India by Al-Biruni, National Book Trust , India, third reprint, 1995, pp. 134-35). Second, it is preposterous for anyone to suggest that Persians could not pronounce the word “Sindhu.” In the Persian-Punjabi Dictionary there are about 58 pages of words that start with “S“ and “SH” in contrast to 33 of “H” words. In Punjabi language there are many Persian words of “S” and “SH” sounds. Moreover, the claim that the Persians pronounced “Sindhu” as “Hindu” or called the river and people who lived around it as “Hindu” does not explain why the river or the people who lived around it did not acquire the name “Hindu.” This river is still called Sindh and the people are called Punjabis and Sindhis. Nobody calls the state of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis. Similarly, the Greeks who explored river Sindh and its five tributaries had no problem pronouncing “H” and yet they chose to call the river and people as Indos or Indus: Indus or Indos (Sindh), Hydaspes (Jehlum), Akesines (Chenab), Hydroatis (Ravi), Hyphasis (Satluj) and Hesidros (Beas). It seems as if these are the names of the explorers. It is the word “Indus/Indos” that later on was used by the Europeans to coin the word “India” for the subcontinent. Meaning It is intriguing that the three authors cited above have not commented on the meaning of the word “Hindu” in spite of the fact that the titles of Jayaram’s and Goel’s articles imply discussion of “origin” as well as “meaning” of Hindu. Why didn’t they explain the meaning of the word “Hindu”? Is it because the word Hindu is a derogatory epithet/label? However, a few Hindu writers who have looked at the meaning of “Hindu” with a critical eye have no hesitation in saying that it is indeed a derogatory word. Two examples will suffice here: 1. R. N. Suryanarayan, in Universal Religion, pages 1-2, (published from Mysore in 1952) commented: The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this [brahminland], a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.” This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky and Saturn.” In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu. 2. Lala Lajpat Rai, Ed., in his introduction of Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, Lahore, 1898, said: Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves. Further, in addition to “black” and “slave”, Persian and Urdu dictionaries describe other demeaning or contemptuous meaning of “Hindu”: Persian Dictionary – Lughet-e-Kishwari, Lucknow, 1964: chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave). Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat, part 1, p. 615: Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter); Persian: ghulam (slave), barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). Persian-Punjabi Dictionary (Punjabi University Patiala): native of Indian subcontinent, dacoit, waylayer, thief, slave, black, idol, beloved. -

[amar_jkp]

The word “Hindu” is at least as old as Hindu Kush, the mountain range that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan (Indian subcontinent). Hindu Kush means killers of Hindus. Who were the people who named this mountain range as “killer of Hindu” and who were “Hindus”? To understand these questions we have to go back to the times of Indus Valley civilization. Before the conquest and destruction of Indus Valley civilization by the so-called Aryans (nomadic Caucasian tribes from central Asia) around 1500-2000 B.C., the Indian subcontinent was inhabited by various dark complexioned clans/ tribes (Advasis). It is not known what name they used for Indus Valley or the Indian subcontinent or for themselves. However, generally, they are known as Dravar (Dravidians) people. The Indus Valley was inhabited by Dravidians whereas nomadic fair-skinned Caucasians tribes/clans lived on the north side of Hindu Kush. The Caucasians used the word “Hindu” meaning “black” for the Indus Valley people. Northward expansion of Indus Valley people was prevented by Hindu Kush Mountains. Whenever the Indus Valley people (Hindus) attempted to cross these mountains, they met death due to the harsh terrain and heavy snow. This is how these mountains were given the name Hindu Kush by Caucasian tribes.

Now, why is the word “Hindu” missing in the religious texts of the conquerors and destroyers of Indus Valley? The reason is quite obvious: like all conquerors throughout the world, the so-called Aryans did not mention the word (Hindu) in their texts in order to wipe out the history (identity) of their victims. Even in modern India, for the Hindu intelligentsia, especially in north India, the history of the Indian subcontinent begins from the Vedic period after the destruction of Indus Valley civilization, one of the most advanced among ancient civilizations. On the other hand Persians continued to refer to the Indus valley as “Waihind”, habitat of Hindus or “Hind Baar”, land of Hindus. Moreover, during that time the word “Hindu” was a reference to the skin color of the Indus Valley people, not in any demeaning sense. The word “Hindu” acquired contemptuous meaning after the conquest of India by Muslims.

The so-called Aryans called their victims (Hindus) by contemptuous names like: daasa (slave), dasyu (thief, dacoit, robber, villain, tyrant), dushta (villain, wicked), chandala (outcaste, merciless, untouchable), asura (devil), naga (serpent), raksa (cannibal/monster) and choar (cor, thief). It is noteworthy that choar (chor) in Sanskrit has the same derogatory meaning as Hindu in Persian: thief, thug, robber, dacoit, and waylayer.

Further, to humiliate the native people (Hindus), the Caucasians ridiculed their culture, looks, and their black complexion. It is astonishing that these derogatory expressions have survived through thousands of years of Indian history and are found in modern Indian languages. “Blackness” (or kaala) is used in bad connotation in northern Indian languages. For example, in Punjabi, there are expressions like kaala munh (black mouth, ugly), kaali jeebh (who speaks ill) kaala dhandha (illegal profession), kaala dhan (black money), kaali bhaid (black sheep), kalai laikh (black deeds) and kaala chum (black skinned person). There are also expressions like bandar munhan (monkey face) and rish jeha (bear-like), which the Caucasians used to describe the features of native Indians (Hindus). In Ramayana, the two native devotees of Shri Ram Chandar are depicted as a monkey (Hanuman) and a bear (Jamawant).

Persians and Arabs called the Indian subcontinent “Hindustan” and its people Hindus. In his compositions recorded in the Aad Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Nanak also used the words “Hindustan” and “Hindu” for the Indian subcontinent and its people, respectively. It is only after their conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Muslims started using the word “Hindu” in a demeaning manner.

Conclusion

Persians and other Caucasian tribes called the Indus Valley people “Hindus” and their country “Waihind”, or “Hind Baar.” Muslims used the word “Hindu” in a demeaning manner after establishing their rule over Hindus. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Hindu intellectuals, product of British education, invented neo-Hinduism and fabricated history to support the mythical glorious ancient Hindu civilization. The convoluted interpretation of the word “Hindu” by modern Hindus is nothing more than a “fabrication of history

[dalsingh101]

The word “Hindu” is at least as old as Hindu Kush, the mountain range that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan (Indian subcontinent). Hindu Kush means killers of Hindus. Who were the people who named this mountain range as “killer of Hindu” and who were “Hindus”? To understand these questions we have to go back to the times of Indus Valley civilization. Before the conquest and destruction of Indus Valley civilization by the so-called Aryans (nomadic Caucasian tribes from central Asia) around 1500-2000 B.C., the Indian subcontinent was inhabited by various dark complexioned clans/ tribes (Advasis). It is not known what name they used for Indus Valley or the Indian subcontinent or for themselves. However, generally, they are known as Dravar (Dravidians) people. The Indus Valley was inhabited by Dravidians whereas nomadic fair-skinned Caucasians tribes/clans lived on the north side of Hindu Kush. The Caucasians used the word “Hindu” meaning “black” for the Indus Valley people. Northward expansion of Indus Valley people was prevented by Hindu Kush Mountains. Whenever the Indus Valley people (Hindus) attempted to cross these mountains, they met death due to the harsh terrain and heavy snow. This is how these mountains were given the name Hindu Kush by Caucasian tribes.

That is a proper racialised theory introduced by whites into India, I believe, partially (at least) to justify their own invasion and occupation. I think people need to be careful with accepting it at face value.

[tonyhp32]

The in-house Nindak claims:

Nowhere in human history has a group of people disowned their mother tongue. This singular event is unprecedented. Since 1947 Punjabi Hindus have been consistently deriding the culture of their ancestors and making every effort to retard the growth of Punjabi language and culture, and the economy of the state"

he has made this ridiculous claim after mentioning that: In Punjab of Pakistan, Punjabi is not taught in schools, and it is not the official language of the state

Which Census figures he is citing to make this accusation? How does he know that Punjabi Hindus (each and everyone of them or just a small minorty?) denied Punjabi with Gurmukhi script as their mother tongue? Is he ready to quote census figures from 1961 (before haryana and Himachal were carved out of maha-punjab because of the communal demand by akali sikhs) onwards to back his sickeningly slanderous and unending attacks on PHs?

while he provides stats to prove that ALL PHs have continued to disown Punjabi as their mother tongue, let me counter this assertion of his:

Nowhere in human history has a group of people disowned their mother tongue.

There is a country called Pakistan and around 65% population of that failed state is punjabi speaking. There is not one single school in Pakistan which teaches Punjabi even in Arabic script they use for their 'national language' Urdu. The official language of Pakistan Punjab state Assembly is Urdu! Punjabi is banned from Assembly!

Published on Dec 23, 2013

'Punjab wants its mother tongue back'

LAHORE - Punjabi Language Movement (PLM) staged a protest outside the Lahore Press Club on Sunday, and demanded that Punjabi language should not be discriminated and students should be given basic education in Punjabi.

Speaking on the occasion, PLM Convener Chaudhry Nazeer Kahut said, "Punjab wants its mother tongue back. The 150-year old undeclared and unofficial ban on basic education in Punjab should be abolished and systematic cleansing of the language must be stopped. We want Punjabi kids to be given basic education in their mother tongue just like the children of the rest of the world."

He said 'constitutional, moral, legal, and democratic rights' of the Punjabis were being usurped by the 'anti-Punjabi rulers', who were obstructing the implementation of Punjabi as the official and academic language. About the proposed National Language Constitution Amendment Bill 2011, Kahut said the bill, with its 'divisive nature' and 'controversial contents', could push the country into an ethno-lingual conflict.

Country integrity will be at stake if the bill was passed, thus they demanded that the bill may be withdrawn or changed. Sindhi, Punjabi, Pushto and Balochi being the languages of the majority in the federating units should be declared as national languages, he said. PLM demanded of the government to introduce the Punjabi Language Act in the Punjab Assembly.

PLM delegations from Jhang, Sargodha, Multan, Sahiwal, Jehlum, Bahawalpur, Mianwali, Khushab, Gujarat, Faisalbad, Rawalpindi, Attock, Bahawlagar, Nankana Sahib and Dera Ghazi Khan also attend the rally. Other organizations who joined the rally included Punjabi Adbi Sangat, Khoj Garh, Khaaksaar Tehreek, Saanjh, National Youth Forum, Maan Boli Research Centre, Punjabi Sangat Pakistan, Punjabi Markaz, Sver International, Punjabi Writers Forum, National Students Federation, Punjabi Union, Pakistan Punjabi Adbi Board and Punjabi National Conference.

Prominent Punjabi writers, intellectuals, supporters and activists also attended the rally. PLM central convening committee members Taqriq Mahmud Jatala, Dr Dilshad Tiawana, Ghazala Alam, Kausar Tiwana and Umer Mahota also spoke on the occasion. The participants were carrying banners and placards inscribed with slogans to end 'official discrimination' against Punjabi language.

Pakistan Today: By: Staff Report | Published: February 21, 2011

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

http://nation.com.pk/lahore/21-Feb-2011/Rally-for-ending-150yearold-ban-on-education-in-Punjabi

Rally for ending 150-year-old 'ban' on education in Punjabi

LAHORE -- The Punjabi Language Movement has called upon the Punjab government to introduce the basic education for the Punjabi children in their mother tongue just like the kids in the rest of the world. The PLM also staged a protest demonstration at the Lahore Press Club on Sunday against the official discrimination of the Punjabi Language.

The participants of the protest were carrying banners and placards inscribed with slogans to end continuous official discrimination against Punjabi language.

On the occasion, a number of other organizations including Punjabi Adbi Sangat, Khoj Garh, Khaaksaar Tehreek, Saanjh, National Youth Forum, Maan Boli Research Centre, Punjabi Sangat Pakistan, Punjabi Markaz, Sver International, Punjabi writers Forum, National Students Federation, Punjabi Union, Pakistan, Punjabi Adbi Board and Punjabi National Conference joined the protest. Prominent Punjabi writers, intellectuals, supporters and activists including Taqriq Mahmud Jatala, Dr Dilshad Tiawana, Ghazala Alam, Kausar Tiwana and Umer Mahota also participated in the protest.

While addressing the protesters, PLM Convener Nazeer Kahut said: "The 150-year-old undeclared and unofficial ban on basic education in the mother tongue in Punjab must be abolished." He said Punjab wanted its mother tongue back, demanding stoppage of official discrimination against the mother tongue of 100 million people of Pakistan.

He further said that the constitutional, moral, legal, and democratic rights of the Punjabi people were being usurped by the establishment and the integrity of Punjab was in grave danger. "Anti Punjabi language forces within the establishment and the rulers are hampering the implementation of the Punjabi as the official, academic and legal language in the Punjab," he added.

The Nation: Published: February 21, 2011

So you Punjabi Hindus are not the only haramz@das that disowned their mother, the Muslim Punjabi did it as well. What a stupid excuse.

[tonyhp32]

From what I've read the Arabs or Persians named the people and state. Other theories include that the name comes from the Sanskrit word panchad. But we do know it's ancient name from the scriptures is Sapta Sindu the land of seven rivers.

Don't worry about the 7 rivers it was way before your time.

Your country Hindustan is named by the Persians, even India is a foreign word coming from Greek and Latin. Your religion is even named by foreigners so you should be the last to talk of Punjab being a Persian word.

[Amandeep Hindustani]

Just curious where does "sikh" come from?

[Amandeep Hindustani]

So you Punjabi Hindus are not the only haramz@das that disowned their mother, the Muslim Punjabi did it as well. What a stupid excuse.

Muslims and Hindus being major civilizations don't have time for your petty issues. Both religions are comfortable in multiple languages.

And NO we are not going to vote for Gurmukhi based "Punjabi" NEVER NEVER

[gdskler]

Just curious where does "sikh" come from?

From the mouth of my Satcha Patshah Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji to my ancestor while listening to Guruji Maharaj katha on that one evening in Punjab. No where else. My ancestor only understand that my Guru ji call him "Sikho...". My ancestor was not interested to know why or where did the word Sikh came from. He was excited that Guru ji Maharaj called him "mera gursikho...." He did not have time to sit and pondered what is sikh but was immersed in love with Guruji vicchar on that day and become a gursikh. So the word Sikh came from the Guru to his student in Punjab.

[amar_jkp]

if i am to use the same language than the Sikhs are those h@ramis who tried to kill their own mother. and we are not talking about something which happened over 50 years back, it's happening today and tony is one of the soldiers of that fauz.

Harami means who we all know and in Punjab we have a koum who drink water of punjab but still are Hindi lovers . I would say again that this harami Hindi loving koum should move out from Punjab.

[Amandeep Hindustani]

I don't need Gurmukhi based punjabi. Hence, I will vote for Hindi again.

Lol!

How does that English pani taste? Some coconut sitting in England telling us what we should or should not speak.