10/08/2026
Rethinking Punjab: History, Geography, and the Saraiki Question
By Saraiki Hakim
History possesses a stubborn resilience: invariably, it forces a return to the archives. While political imperatives may distill complex geographies into simplified maps, and governments may arbitrarily redraw boundaries bequeathing subsequent generations an illusion of monolithic continuity the foundational documents of an era frequently reveal a far more intricate reality.
Central to this historical recalibration is a revealing memorandum submitted by Sikh political leadership to Sir Stafford Cripps during the constitutional twilight of British India. The document draws an extraordinary, yet often overlooked, distinction between what its authors termed “Punjab proper” and the territories of Jhang and Multan.
The memorandum explicitly notes:
"We are sure you know that the Punjab proper extended up to the banks of the Jhelum, excluding the and districts, and the Trans- area was added by the conquest of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and retained by the British for administrative convenience.”
The assertion did not end there. The memorandum proceeded to characterize the Trans- demographic as an “ ” population which, in the estimation of the authors, had merely been appended to the province by historical accident and ought not to determine the future of “Punjab proper.”
The Illusion of a Monolithic Identity
This is no mere historical footnote; it raises a profound inquiry that retains potent political relevance in contemporary Pakistan: When we speak of “Punjab,” which Punjab are we actually referring to?
The Punjab of modern-day Pakistan is undeniably an established constitutional province. However, the proposition that this province represents an ancient, uninterrupted, and culturally homogeneous historical entity is an entirely different assertion one that demands rigorous scholarly scrutiny.
The significance of the 1940s memorandum lies in its origins. It was not authored by contemporary advocates of a Saraiki province, but by Sikh political representatives engaged in an existential struggle over the constitutional future of British India.
Their definition of “Punjab proper” was shaped by political expediency, linguistic and religious considerations, as well as prevailing academic classifications and historical understandings. Precisely for this reason, the memorandum offers invaluable insight into how territorial identities were perceived by influential actors of that era.
They explicitly decoupled and from their conception of Punjab. Furthermore, they attributed the incorporation of the Trans- territories directly to the military expansionism of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, arguing that the British colonial administration subsequently retained these boundaries out of sheer "administrative convenience."
Such historical realities must be approached with intellectual honesty. While military conquest can fundamentally alter cartography, it does not seamlessly erase a people's heritage.
The nineteenth century witnessed seismic shifts in the political geography of the Indus basin. The expansion of the Sikh Empire forcibly brought territories far beyond the traditional core of the Lahore state under its dominion, incorporating Multan through military subjugation. Yet, political sovereignty is not synonymous with cultural assimilation.
A territory may be annexed without its indigenous linguistic identity being extinguished. It can be integrated into an administrative apparatus without its populace forfeiting their historical memory. Consequently, a province can be governed as a singular bureaucratic unit without its constituent regions sharing a monolithic cultural experience.
This distinction is paramount when evaluating the Saraiki/Mooltani-speaking region of present-day Pakistan. Multan, Jhang, Dera Ghazi Khan,Dera Ismail Khan, Bahawalpur, and their peripheries harbor profound, deeply rooted linguistic and literary traditions. Their complex histories cannot be dismissively relegated to the status of a mere southern extension of a singular, timeless Punjabi cultural continuum.
Crucially, acknowledging Saraiki/Mooltani distinctiveness does not necessitate hostility toward Punjabi culture. For centuries, Punjabi and Saraiki/Mooltani communities have engaged in dynamic linguistic exchange, shared religious traditions, and robust commercial enterprises. The history of the Indus basin is a testament to this interaction. However, interaction is not tantamount to identicality. A shared civilizational landscape does not inevitably forge a single political nationality; cultures can gracefully overlap without coalescing into uniformity.
The peril arises when colonial administrative history is mistaken for inherent cultural destiny. The British frequently gerrymandered territories for fiscal and military utility, not to reflect the ethnic or linguistic cohesion of the populations residing within them. The 1940s memorandum echoes this exact sentiment regarding the Trans-Jhelum territories.
This should induce caution against treating every historical boundary line as irrefutable evidence of eternal cultural unity. While the modern province of Punjab exists constitutionally, that constitutional existence does not mandate the suppression of the diverse regional identities it houses.
Pakistan’s constitutional framework inherently provides a democratic mechanism for the deliberation of new provinces. The discourse, therefore, should not be reductively framed as: “Are Saraikis/Mooltanis genuinely Punjabis?” Such a framing falsely presumes that one identity must invalidate the other. A far more constructive inquiry would be: Why should a historically and linguistically distinct region be denied political recognition merely because it was once swept into a larger administrative unit?
Pakistan has already borne the catastrophic consequences of allowing questions of language, regional inequality, and political representation to metastasize into permanent polarization. The tragic rupture of 1971 should not be weaponized as a political threat against any community advocating for its rights; rather, it must serve as a solemn warning against treating legitimate regional grievances as acts of subversion.
A federation is not fortified by demanding cultural homogeneity from its constituent peoples. It derives its strength from fostering an inclusive polity where citizens trust that their language, history, resources, and political aspirations can find equitable representation. The Saraiki/Mooltani question must, therefore, be navigated through rigorous scholarship, constitutional politics, and democratic consent not through ethnic condescension. To advocate for a Saraiki province is not a rejection of Pakistan, but a petition for a more equitable federal arrangement within it.
If by “Punjab” we mean the contemporary Pakistani province, its present boundaries are the product of successive political and administrative arrangements and cannot, by themselves, stand as proof of an ancient, culturally unified region. If it refers to the nineteenth-century polity of the Sikh Empire, its borders were merely the fluid byproducts of military annexation. And if it implies a culturally monolithic nation whose frontiers have stood unchallenged since antiquity, the historical record remains resolutely unconvinced.
The 1940s memorandum is but one fragment of that record, yet it is potent enough to unravel simplistic historical slogans. The discourse surrounding Saraiki identity is not a battle between history and separatism; it is a fundamental debate about whose history dictates the map.
Pakistan is not compelled to choose between Punjabi and Saraiki/Mooltani cultures. It simply requires a federal architecture capacious enough to embrace both. A nation’s true fortitude is measured not by its capacity to suppress regional identities, but by its confidence in allowing them to coexist within a shared constitutional framework. The map may be an inherited construct, but identity remains a lived experience. And history, when read without prejudice, rarely speaks in a single voice.
By Saraiki Kisaan
