Are Baloch and Brahui two different groups ?

I agree with Mr Borhaan what he writes commenting on M. Sarjov’s recent venture on Balochi and Brahui speaking tribes when he writes that “The Baluch have been self differentiating and self defining ethno cultural through history even if they did not have the required sense of social and political solidarity to assert themselves as a nation as it is understood in present day’s world. Baluch through history are an amalgam of two distinct groups Baluch and Brahui.”

It appears that either Mr Sarjov has no knowledge of Baloch history or he intentionally distorts the history for reasons known to him. He is probably right in only one thing that the Baloch is no more a nation as it does not have an independent state though he forgets that the Baloch had a state of his own for about 500 years and he had an independent state until late March 1948. If an independent state is the only criteria for nationhood then Baloch was a nation until March 1948 and no more since April 1948.
As to the question of Balochi and Brahui speakers Mr Sarjov is totally wrong. As in all criteria Balochi and Brahui speakers are Baloch and call themselves and by other as such. In the similar manner, tens of Baloch tribes now living in Sind, Punjab and D I Khan in Pakhtunkhwah, and who no more speak Balochi or Brahui, are Baloch whether they want to return back to Balochistan in a future date or not and whether they consider their lands, such as the Derajat, to become a part of Balochistan or not in a future date. A Rind or Lashari, or Dreshak or Mazari, or Jatoi or Leghari is a Baloch no matter he lives in any part of the world and whether he calls himself as such or not and whether he speaks Balochi any more or not. Even if he himself claims he is no more a Baloch, others classify him a Baloch from his Baloch ancestors (I know that some of my old friends, such as the NP leadership, calls it a chauvinistic approach but it is not me who says who is Baloch or who is not but the people themselves and others how to call them). I remember in an official meeting with President Zardari when some Baloch elders expressed their happiness on a Baloch sitting on the President’s seat Zardari exclaimed that he was no more a Baloch. "My ancestors were Baloch 500 years back but I am no more a Baloch", were his words. Some other Baloch present in the gathering reminded him that his father, Mir Hakim Ali Zardari, used to call himself a Baloch till the end of his days and felt proud of his Baloch identity.

About the Balochi and Brahui speaking tribes Mir Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo, whose Bizenjo tribe is half Balochi speaking and half Brahui speaking, wrote in 1982 that “The Baloch and the Brahui are not two separate peoples; they are one and the same. The only difference is the language. There is absolutely no difference in social practices and the structure of their society. They follow the same customs from birth to death, happiness and sorrow”. He adds, “As to their difference in language, language is not the only criteria for resolving the question of racial kinship. Anyone can adopt any language. The Baloch might have learnt the Brahui language from some of the old tribes who were once occupying these regions”. He again writes that “the Brahui speakers call themselves Baloch and those of the Balochi speaking tribes Rakhshani” (See Bizenjo’s introduction to Janmahmad’s Baloch Cultural Heritage). Hetu Ram, who wrote during the late 19th century, reproduces the tradition then common among the Brahui speaking tribes of the region that “During the period of Mir Hasan (father of Mir Ahmad Khan, the progenitor of the Ahmadzai tribe) the following tribes abandoned their Balochi language and adopted Brahui: Shahwani, Bangulzai, Mahmadshai, Kurd, Lehri, Shahizai Mengal, Mosiani and Bizenjo”. This phenomenon has continued till this date and the majority of Brahui speaking tribes have members in Balochi speaking majority areas who do not speak any Brahui at all.

As to the Brahui language, it has become an enigma how this language has arrived in Balochistan or was brought by whom. An earlier theory was that the Dravidian languages were once spoken in a vast area comprising of the Indus Valley and central Balochistan but this theory finds no more support in modern scholarship. Presently, the growing theory is that the language was brought from central or eastern parts of India and that those who brought the language could have had contacts with Munda tribes (Brahui, in its base, is classified as a member of the Northern Dravidian group close to Kurux and Malto). This group of Dravidian languages might have been close to the group nowadays localised to Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Other scholars of Brahui have also formed similar opinions in modern times and the theory that “the Proto-Dravidians entered the subcontinent from outside and that Brahui was the result of the first split of Proto-Dravidian” is finding no support in modern scholarship. It is established that “the most archaic features of Dravidian in phonology and morphology are still found in the southern languages, namely Early Tamil and that “it is best to consider Dravidians to be the natives of the Indian subcontinent”. As such, the theory that Brahui is Dravidians left behind either by the early Dravidians on their way to India, or that the present Brahui tribes came from northern or southern India is finding no strong support in present scholarship. At the same time, the enigma remains of who brought the language to its present abode. One theory is that it was brought by some Gypsy groups following the Muslim conquest of India (opinion forwarded by Jules Bloch), or it was brought during the 12th century AD (see Encyclopaedia Iranica), etc. What is clear enough is that both Balochi and Brahui speaking tribes claim descendants from Amir Hamza, having come from Arabia, and reached their present homeland from Makran (see G. P. Tate [1896], Kalat: A Memoir on the Country and Family of the Ahmadzai Khans of Kalat). To this point, Arabia as an original homeland and Amir Hamza as a common ancestor seem to have no grounds but a common origin from Makran is very important to our discussion here as this shows that both Balochi and Brahui speaking tribes trace their original homeland in Makran and a common origin.

A Baloch (Name withheld)

http://sarjau.blogspot.com/2011/02/are-baloch-and-brahui-two-different.html