The Abbassis, who are a breakaway faction of the Kalhora family — though the princely family tries to propagate themselves as direct descendents of the Abbasids — established the princely state in the early 1800s. The histories commonly available do not emphasise the fact that the rule was essentially a family dictatorship, though some of the rulers may be benign. For instance, we rarely hear of histories written by Shahamat Ali or Syed Murad Shah Gardezi that speak of brutal methods applied by Nawab Bahwal III against some of his top bureaucrats.
To use a cliché that history is mostly written by the victors, historiography that just presents events without explaining the context — the sociology and politics of those times — tends to create illusions that often shape the way societies think about themselves and their rulers. It is a fact that the Seraikis of Bahawalpur show respect towards the Nawab’s family. While economic development may be one reason there are other explanations as well. The Seraiki-speaking population of Bahawalpur, indeed, remembers the old nawabs with great fondness, especially because they share a common language and heritage. The common Seraiki has no cultural tie with the ‘outsider’ who seems to have prospered over the years, leaving the ‘native’ in relative poverty. The present-day longing of the Bahawalpuri Seraiki for the Nawab is largely driven by his sense of isolation within what he considers as his own home. Popular accounts rarely expose the fact that successive nawabs spent much less on developing indigenous human resources and instead imported Punjabis, Urdu-speakers and some Pashtuns to run the state bureaucracy and the state in general. The ‘native’ remained less developed compared to other ethnicities that prospered. Thus, without undermining the fact that the princely state of Bahawalpur was well run, it cannot be ignored that widely available accounts do not include accounts less popular with the rulers or those that contain ethnography of the ‘native’.
There are two other interrelated critical issues worth considering. First, state-making is never a static process. The political decision taken at the time of the creation of Pakistan by the nawab of Bahawalpur to integrate with Pakistan meant that other or larger forces that would govern the politics of the new polity would determine the future of the area. From then on, Bahawalpur or any other princely state would not remain a small entity but part of a larger whole. The question is, could it have happened otherwise? Could Bahawalpur, Khairpur, Swat, Kashmir, Hyderabad, Junagarh and several other states swim on their own? The winds in 1947 were blowing differently and with a different velocity.
Second, even if the princely states remained politically as they were, there is no guarantee that the quality of the polity would have remained the same or in the imaginary ideal condition. The issue with dictatorships, even though they may be benign at some time, is that such entities are extremely temperamental. A lot depends on the IQ and EQ of the ruler and a stable intellectual capacity is not a constant. A glance at the rulers of Bahawalpur and their modern generation will bear me out in this context. While some of the old ones had a vision and were progressive, the same cannot be said about the current lot which lacks vision. A visit to the crumbling Derawar fort and other palaces bears witness to this. In any case, the politics of Bahawalpur has gone way ahead for anyone to put the ‘geneie back into the bottle’ of its history.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 17th, 2012.
COMMENTS (24)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The nawab no longer has any political authority but is still respected and adored by the rayasties.
The forts no longer belong to the nawabs and most of them have been occupied by the army. In India the palaces were given to the nawab families and most of them are no profitable and beautiful hotels.
Salim Haidarani sb: I never suggested that there shouldn't be another province but this is worth debating that what format will it take. Bahawalpur was certainly prosperous historically but this may not be true now. Besides the loot and plunder of takht Lahore just kindly look at the revenue receipts and you will see that the receivable are limited. I would also like people to rethink giving the nawab a role as he is an image manipulated by other interest groups. Plz think about it. We must have new provinces but not in this fashion.
bhawalpur province/state was a rajputan state ruled by a sindhi/arab amir was forced into one unit/punjab so it should be released
Its interesting, that the writer does not even know what does "Dabupotra" means.
Any one has a guess. The shosha released by the writer shall die here. I will wait for any guesses and then give the meaning.
@M Ali Khan: Kalat/ Qalat was an entity entirely different from 'Indian princely states' as continuously claimed by the last Khan, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, since early 1930s. Mir Ahmad Yar Khan claimed that Kalat was not like an Indian princely state, but had entered into an agreement with the British Crown as a sovereign state. The learned writer knowing history well rightly omitted Kalat from her well-written, excellent piece.
@Deb: opposite point of view is being blocked only one section of population is being posted sorry riyasti view is blocked
I think Pakistan needs several more provinces on the basis of linguistic nationalism and ethnicity because Aysha knows how the Pakistani - Punjab is run and how the small multicultural communities like Siraikis and the People of Bahawalpur within Punjab are officially administrative and treated.
The current PPP led government will not be able to exploit this issue because it has bigger fight with the army and the Punjabi - establishment and the Siraiki aristocracy is not historically loyal to its language and history.
However, more provinces and administrative Units are needed to maintain Pakistan's multinational character like Canada,Australia and UK where different nationalities and linguist groups unite the nation - state.
Dr. Salim Haidrani London
A beautiful piece of writing.Hungry for more.
A well written.
i think that this sums all up that "While some of the old ones had a vision and were progressive, the same cannot be said about the current lot which lacks vision. A visit to the crumbling Derawar fort and other palaces bears witness to this. In any case, the politics of Bahawalpur has gone way ahead for anyone to put the ‘geneie back into the bottle’ of its history". a think if the Nawab wanted to progress within Bahawalpur they would have done it while the MNA
s and MP
s of Bahawalpur. People want progress not how it comes.Quite informative.Did a little search in the web,but so far all I found is when but not how the dynasty started.Who was the ruler,who were the inhabitants,what were their religion and culture when the first ruler Bahadur Khan II (1690-1702) established his rule. Would appreciate if someone can provide some link.
Well written and informative.
An aged writer (Mr. Zahid Hussain) told me that at the time of independence, Bahawalpur joined India, but later joined Pakistan (I was able to confirm this from another source as well). I also heard that a couple of Indian princely states (Patiala being one of them) initially joined Pakistan, but later reverted to India.
"Whoever said that reading and writing history is not an art? The presentation of select facts without understanding or explaining the context doesn’t make for good history writing."
Look who is talking!
@Khurram: plz refer to the comment by Navid. The nawab family was a break away part of the Kalhoras. Also, I don't think the author is talking about the old nawab but the new generation which has no vision. Plz change your reading glasses before getting angry.
They were local Sindhi tribes, Daudpota's, cousins of Kalhoras. Both were converted and later claimed themselves as Abbasis. Richard Burton has written elaborately on this. Tragedy with our people is that they do not loose any chance to distance themselves from their soil and connect their roots with middle east.
@Umer
Commercialization was never part and vision of the Bahwalpur state. It was a wellfare state looking for the benefit of people only, like others of course they could ahve pocketed large sums, but bieng simple sometimes is not that good.
and about the future vision and strugle, just two words.
Education and Health Care, all the rest come along with these.
My last post has been edited to a larger extent in which I had requested Journalsitic decency (if human decency could not prevail) to correct the facts. Let me put the correction again, Abbasi family was not and is not the brake away part of Kholaros, Kholaros and Abbasis were fierce oponents through out history. Like the nawabs libereated Multan from sikh mercenaries they also liberated large parts under Kholaro control.
@Abdullah thank you very much for your comment.
@khurram Mansoor: it still doesn't stop the nawabs to do something about the Darawar fort now. It could be turned into a museum or even a hotel as is done in Jaipur and Jodhpur. What is the nawab family's vision, any way?
Liked the article...was certainly informative
"The question is, could it have happened otherwise? Could Bahawalpur, Khairpur, Swat, Kashmir, Hyderabad, Junagarh and several other states swim on their own? The winds in 1947 were blowing differently and with a different velocity."
you left out the State of Kalat, when it became isolated and surrounded by Pakistan soon after independence when the states of Kharan, Makuran, Bela, and British Baluchistan all willingly acceded to Pakistan.
Would the so-called Kalat independence activists - who defied the Khan of Kalat's own eventual desire to join Pakistan as "an article of faith" - survived on their own as well?