Afridis are one of the most finest tribe of pashtuns.They are very light in complexation ,some with green eyes and brown hairs.On average they are 5.8 feet tall. they are unmatchable in their bravery.they are known to be tough and very knowledgeable

http://images.google.com.pk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pashto.org/personalities/pics/thumbs/ajabkhantam.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.pashto.org/shakhsiyat.php%3Fsubaction%3Dshowfull%26id%3D1081725994%26archive%3D%26cnshow%3Dheadlines%26start_from%3D%26ucat%3D1%26go%3Dallppl&h=100&w=70&sz=5&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=2faic5tfnmR9vM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=57&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dajab%2Bkhan%2Bafridi%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D -  

 

   SHAHID AFRIDI

 ZEEK AFRIDI( PASHTO SINGER)

 

==Durranis==

Durrani  tribe is one of the two largest pashtun tribes of afghanistan and is also found in large numbers in western pakistan. They are estimated to be roughly 20% of the population of Afghanistan and number around 7 million there with another 1-2 million found in Pakistan and hundreds of thousands also live in northeast iran. The Durrani are the most "Persianized" of pashtun tribes, often bilingual in dari, as well as arguably being among the most urbanized and educated of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan.

The Durrani have been prominent leaders, as the royal family of Afghanistan is derived from the tribe, and a substantial number of Durrani are bureaucrats and public officials, as well as businessmen and merchants. durranis in pakistan are inhabitat in multan, attock districts of punjab and other parts of punjab. Most of Duranis outside NWFP have lost their ancsestral langauge.

http://images.google.com.pk/imgres?imgurl=http://ww1.m78.com/bio-photo/durrani.JPG&imgrefurl=http://ww1.m78.com/topix-2/durrani%2520dynasty.html&h=201&w=150&sz=12&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=8snN5701K5WqjM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=78&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddurrani%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D -

 akram durrani                                   mohammed ali durrani(left)

==marwats==

Marwat مروت, a well known branch of pashtun tribe, are the direct descendents of a Persian Prince Shah Hussain of the house of ghor afghanistan and Bibi Mato (Daughter of Sheikh Baittan). The clan is named after 'Marwat', who was the great grandson of Ibrahim Lodhi or Lodi (second son of Prince Shah Hussain/Bib Mato and younger brother of Ghiji or . Their primary abode is District lakki marwat in the southern NWFPof pakisytan .They also live in large number in tank and dera ismail khan districts.

==Niazis==

 

 Niazis speak the mianwali language which is mixup of pushto and local mianwali language totally different from other languages like saraikee and hindko rather than their ancestral pashto but nevertheless strictly observe pashtunwali, the Pashtun code of honor. The Niazi tribe is an influential player in the politics of Pakistan especially Punjab.  

sher afgan niazi( politician)         imran khan niazi               

        

          misbahulhaq                    samullah niazi

 

 

 

 

              Lodhi or Lodi s a pashtun tribe, most likely a sub-group of the ghilazi of afghanistan and pakistan who were part of a wave of Pashtuns who pushed east into what is today Pakistan and india. Often accompanying the turkic who conquered south asia, the Lodhi established themselves during the Islamic period in South Asia as a muslim ruling class and were valued warriors.

Lodhis of nowadays almost all live in punjab and india.Due ot interrmarrages with locals they do not look like pashtuns, also do not speak pashto.Among colonies of lodhis , the lodhis of lodhiabad ( kashmir) have retained most of the features of pashtuns. Lodhis are generally very tall.

      Sahir lodhi( D.G_)                                                   saifullah lodhi

 maliha lodhi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khattak - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khattak

afrasiab khattak                        ajmal khattack

 

I will add to your Pashtun tribes with these:

WUR - also known as Wara along with the kakazai and Salarzai are a division of of the tarkani pashtun tribe. There are about 3,000 of them living principally in the Watelai valley in Bajaur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wur - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wur

 

KAKAZAI - there is alot of information on the Pashtun tribe of Kakazai. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakazai - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakazai

 

Most of the Indian "Pathans" arent Pathans. They're mostly Indian with the odd Pathan in their ancestry.

 

Are you a Rajput btw?

 

 

Like hell they are. Do they speak Pashto?

 

 

But The mayor of Jhelum, who is a very close friend of mine told me that lodhi or lodhe is a Gujjar sub caste........true ???????

 

And in Swat Gujjars and pathanas are mixed........

 

isnt it right ?

 

Yes, rohillas of Bareilly/Rampur and bangashes of farrukhabdad are pathans and have produced many pathan notables. They have unique place in pashtun world because

1-their features are not of pashtun due intermarraiges with local muslims.

2-they have lost their ancestral langauge due to long peroid of separation

   from mainland.

 i do  not know that indian pathans follow pashtunwali or not. If they have retain pashtun traditions and characteristics than they are  ofcourse  pathans.

Mohammed ali jauhar, a rohilla pathan

 

Yess Omar BhaiJaan

 

There are numerous Lodhe Gurjars is India.

 

PLs tell me how lodhis are connected to Famous Indian King "Lodhi"

In swat gujjars are not so mixed with yousafzais.

 

Yess Omar bhai,

 

Lodhe Gujjars are numerous in India

Yes I know which is why millions live here.

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=SUBSITES&page=SUBSITES&id=434fdc702 - http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=SUBSITES&page=SUBSITES&id=434fdc702

 As for as i know afghanistan is the proper homeland of pathans .Most of the pashtun tribes in pakistan have migrated from region of the present day afghanistan to adjacent indian areas constituiting nowadays N.W.F.P province of pakistan commonly called pakhtunistan.

   There were two types of migration occured few centuries ago

1-Migration to present day pakistan

2-Migartion to india

 

    Pathan tribes used to migrate as a whole tribe from one place to other. One of the first tribe who migrated to northern portion of N.W.F.P province of pakistan ( at that time it was a region of hindustan) was Dilazak tribe who get assimilated with local people unable to maintain their race and culture. Two centuries later yousafzai a large and powerful pathan tribe arrived from a region near kabul to here to find already an organized people claiming themselves afghans. Yousafzais refused to accept them afghans (because of their darker looks and semi pathan culture) and started a war against them to occupy their regions and drive them from that valley( later called as yousafzai valley) .This fights continued for decades eventually result in total destruction of dilazaks ,those survived fled to india.(today dilazak is an almost extinct tribe of pashtun).

    Yousafzais never assimilated into locals and remain pashtun.Other tribes like khalils,mohammends,mohammedzai,karlanris etc also migrated from afghansitan and settled near yousafzais regions to transform the region totally into afghan dominted area.

    Similarly southern portion  of N.W.F.P was get settled by tribes migrated from ghilzai afghan area including lodhi and lohani tribes. Most of these tribes were defeated by powerful tribes in afghanistan result in their search of new ares for settlement. these large scale migrations created a homogenious region of afghans from chitral to D.I khan district.

  Pathans of these region extend only the region of afghanistan to indus river. they were succesful in preserving their identity because the region before their arrival lack any significiant population.Few centuries later this region became centre of pashtun power and also became secondary source of pathan migations.

  But it should be rememberd that pashtun region of balochistan province and some tribal agencies are part of orignal land of pashtuns.

 

 Not all the tribes shifted to adjacent areas of afghanistan but some also migrated to distant india.The first  true pathan tribe to move into india was lodhi tribe. Lodhis were successful in establishing rule in india. they needed their menpower of their countrmen which would strengthened their rule in india. So sultan bhalol lodhi invited pathan families in afghanistan to try their fortune in india.Only few and weak tribe of pashtuns accepted invitation and migrated to alien lands of india. The migration of individual pathans continued untill the end of lodhi dyanasty by moghals. Lodhi empire was basically a governament based on tribal system. Tribal leaders were very powerful and army was organized on tribal basis. Every tribe was given certain reion to rule and manage.

They were not united and usually one tribe used to fight with other.When moghals arrived they destroy their organistan and made them weak.

  The final blow was given to the pathan power in india by suris who were themselves pathans. Sher shah suri snatched power moghal hamayun and once again established pathan dyansty in india but with different mood. he was fearful from pathan tribal leaders and respective tribal unity so he dispersed concentreted pathan colonies and sent individual pathan families into different parts of country including  bengal. He forcibly settle pathans (belonginf different tribes of pashtuns) in Bengal and gave them land. This was a cruel act and few centuries later pathans in bengal lost their identity. when moghals defeated suris and established rule ,their power was never challenged by afghans because of their dispersed conditions carried out by sher shah suri.

 the second and last pathan migration into india was in 18th century.these  were bangashes and yousfzais occupying farrukabad and rohilkhand respectively.

To the time of partition of india in 1947 many princely states were ruled by pathans.

Rampur   ruled by rohilla pathans

Palanpur  ruled by lohani afghans

Bhopal   ruled by aurakzai pathans

jonagadh   ruled by babar pathans

tonk         ruled by yousafzi or rohilla pathans

malerkotla   ruled by sherani afghans

 

It is not determined whether afghans are second most populaous group in punjab. but yes afghans or pathans are very numerous in pakistani punjab( all pathans in east pakistan migrated to pakistan in 1947). Doaba was once known as mini afghanistan due large afghan colonies.

 Following are magor afghans or pathan groups.

     These pathans belonging to different tribes have migrated centuries ago into punjab and live in different districts of punjab. i have met several these type of pathans. they speak punjabi and look like punjabis. They only claim pathan origin but do not follow pashtun culture..  

These pathans have also came from afghansitan , have preserved some of pathan identites specialy by multani pathans. But they don not speak pashto. They now their tribes and sub-tribes , an essential thing for a pathan to know.

  pathans in kasur have migrated 5 centuris ago and populated the whole of kasur region.they were  kheshgi afghans and have their distict history in kasur. they are now in state of dicline and kasur is rapidly become punjabi again.

 Multani pathans are mostly durrani tribes migrated in the times of durrani rule on punjab. they have their own villages in punjab.

these are pure pathans live in areas of punjab adjacent to pakhtunistan. These include districts of Mianwali, attock and D.G khan.These pathans have only forgot their langauge in 100 years but have maintained their culture ,traditions and physical featues of pashtuns.

  Pashtun in mianwali are mostly niazis but also include other tribes. Mianwali is an essentailly pashtun dominated district.

 Many regions of attock are pathan- dominated  of khattack and yousafzai tribe. Overall pathans are a magority group.

 Although D.G.khan is a baloch dominated district but there is about a large population of 180000 pashtuns from mainly khatrani tribe.

http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_mother_tongue.pdf - http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_mother_tongue.pdf

 

The same goes for Pakistanis "Pathans" all ta bandi ma bandi makani Afghan/pashton...with exception of hill tribes..who are the purest Afghans in the world!

 

 

puff.... where is Pashtonistan? i do not see a country, or region by that name.... the actual country, father land, mother land and identity of Afghan/Pashtons are land of Afghan---Afghanistan!

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Azmal   puff.... where is Pashtonistan? i do not see a country, or region by that name.... the actual country, father land, mother land and identity of Afghan/Pashtons are land of Afghan---Afghanistan!

 

Pathan history extends further into Afghan history than Pakistani history, but there are more Pashtuns in Pakistan than Afghanistan. So he's actually right.

 

Originally posted by azmal you know what... i don't why you guys call afghan/pashtons Pathan? wtf... Pathan is a demagoguery word... no actual Afghan will ever refer to him/her self as Pathan! Only those half breed ta bandi ma bandi makanis.... those that can not even read/write pashto or even speak a pashto but claim to be Afghan!

 

Maqsad, "Pathan" may come from Sanskrit, Pratisthana, it's not from Parthian. It's a recent derivation, perhaps by the British. The Pashtuns have always been known as Afghans. It's possible that the word Pathan comes from Herodutus's Paktye people, which was Sanskritized into Pakhtana or Pathan. Pakhtun either means "back of the mountains", or robust men (parsava (Old Iranian)).

 

 

  

 

 

Many native Pashto speakers call themselves Pathan when not speaking English. It's only the handful of out of touch "Pashtuns" that dwell on internet forums that want to think they're more Pashtun than others (probably because they're half breeds) that make statements like this. To most Pashtuns, it makes no difference to be called a Pathan or a Pakhtun.

 

I never seen one Pashto book, literature or any worthy pashton refer to him/her self as Pathan. Off course other then indianized ta mandi ma mandi makani...

You should go and read, Kushal khan khatak, Rahman baba, Ghani baba and the rest and see what they call themselves…. I dare you to bring me one book, even written two yeas ago in pashto that have mentioned Afghan/Pashtons as Pathan… that is if you can read Pashto…

 

Nowhere does it say that they were Bactrians, or that Ashkan was Bactrian. They were also vassals of the Seleucids, doesn't make them Greek.

 

 

You know i really have problem with the term "Iranian" today this word has lost it's original connotation. today any citizen of country iran (formally know as Persian until 1932) are called Iranian… and ironically majority of citizen of this country are Azari-Turk, Arab, Armani, Assrians. Bakhteri turk and….    

German anthropologist use the word iranic instead of Iranian to differentiate but still I think this confusion clouds the identity and culture of a lot of real “Iranian”(Aryans) whom were the initiator of Aryan culture in region.   So it would be prudent to use the word Aryan instead of iranian.

 

 

 

Exactly...t he reason why British try to sell  the word "Pathan" was more political... British tried hard to justify their occupation of Afghanistan's land---NWFP and FATA... thus they try to forge history and identity for the occupied afghans in pashtonistan. In  the book “The Pathan” Olaf Caroe tries to sell the idea that those that lives in hills are Pathan and those in plans are Afghan… but this bs fall in it’s face when most of Peshwari and other plan people are NOT Afghan in blood but in language only. While the actual afghans are those of hills----FATA and Afghanistan.  

Thus not only the word Pathan has a negative connotation----women kidnapper, but it is also used to undermine national identity and unity of Afghan tribes. So I don’t know why and how those that claim to be Afghan/Pashton in their right mind could call themselves Pathan?

 

 

 

Maqsad. You've really got it all wrong again. The word "Pathan" was not even invented before the British came. I have no idea where you're getting all this horseman stuff from, because I've spoken to enough Punjabis to know of such folktales if they were said about Parthians or Pathans or whatever

 

People of FATA are Pathans/Pashtuns/Pakhtuns/Afghans. Those of Peshawar would be a mix as it's a city, but outside of the cities in the villages and towns/hills you will find your "pure Pashtuns"

Pakistan is a mixture of central asia and the subcontinent. If you think NWFP wants t join with Afghanistan you're mistaken. Pakistan has turned into a safe haven not only for subcontinental people but also for Afghanistani people.

 

Teldeinduz" when it is correctly pointed out to you that the Pastoons lands of the NWFP and Afganistan were the same people, and the British divided  it in the mid 19th century with an artificial border, while the rest of Pakistan, starting from the plains of Punjab, is a remedy for the muslims of the sub-continent, then suddenly TeldeInduz you say and i quote "Pakistan is a mixture of central asia and the subcontinent"..

So what happened to all your long comments about the "ancient pakistanis" being seperate from india and never being part of its history and culture? Or is India not part of the sub-continent now?

 "Pakistan being a mixture of cental asia and the subcontinent",   but i thought Pakistan was seperate from India's people and history? I thought it was, according to you, not part of the Subcontinent history until the British came along?

You can't seperate pakistan from pastoons but you can from india , even though punjab is divided between the 2 countries that is until somebody says the pashtoons are seperate from the rest of pakistan, then you do  a u-turn. 

You can't seperate pakistan from pastoons but you can from india , even though punjab is divided between the 2 countries that is until somebody says the pashtoons are seperate from the rest of pakistan, then you do  a u-turn.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

 

Maybe you should do some research on the Grand trunk road started by the Mauryas and see where exactly it goes through. You may also be interested to know that before partition there were 500,000 Hindus In Lahore, but the villages in the District were muslim, and with Delhi it was vice-versa. In other words Lahore was a Hindu city and Delhi a muslim.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................

 

So tell me what do you think Punjab and Sind were before Islam and Sikhism, was it just Vacant. No one there?

These surnames Bhatti, Chauhan, Rana, Raja, Sial, Sethi they dont sound very muslim to me.

 

 

It's pretty much known that Sind and Punjab were Buddhist and Vedic areas. Shiharus, Sahsi II. Some Hindus lived there, and some still do.

 

Maqsad my family is from Delhi so what i tell you now is on good authority.

In punjab, jats (farmers) and Tharkans(carpenters) mostly converted to Sikhism and are mainly rural based, hindus were communities engaged in Commerce, so they are urban based.

After partition these merchant- business communities from Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan would obviously not go villages in punjab like Sikh jats but head for the largest cities. After Lahore,  the obvious choice was Delhi. The end result is that before Partition Delhi was Muslim after partition it became Hindu Punjabi, believe me Delhi is full of Lahoris, Peshwaris and Multanis. Delhi is now 80% Hindu. 11% muslim and 6% sikh

There is a caste called Aroras who are a business community, with surnames such as Chopra, verma, sethi, ahuja, chadda. The whole of this caste is from Pakistan side and were rarely found in India before Partition, but now they are concentrated in Delhi , and they are one of the most prosperous communities.They all originate from the Multan area. They are sometimes called Bhapas and have the custom of cousin marriage.   

Hindus did not convert to Islam after Partion because they could not be bothered to leave as you have said, and they definitely did care about their religion. Delhi including satelite towns is nearly 20 million, that's where the Partition punjabi hindus are.  Think about it.....if 5 million hindus crossed over during parition as you yourself admitted.....then how many are there now with the population increasing 5 fold?  

Now Indian punjab is not 90% Sikh but 60% and in the urban cities it is 75% Hindu, whereas  the rural is 80% Sikh. Check the Indian census 2001 if you don't belive me. Thats 10 million out of 25 million.

Where my family originally are from is Himachal Pradesh, which use to be known as the punjab hills. This state  is the most hindu in India  at 98%. So that is another 6.5 million. 

I think this represents a good number of Hindu punjabis, that you thought were not numerous and to answer your question they did not end up in Punjab

If you interested 1 million sindhis also came over during partition but they obviously headed for Mumbai. There are said to around 7-8 million sindhis in India.    

 

 

This is actually from a Hindutva website. It calls Pakistan current day Pakistan as well as Bangladesh. Bangladesh did have a high Hindu population. West Pakistan's Hindu population has always been very low. Read Mahabharata to find out why.

I dont know what the Hindu population of west punjab was before it went to Pakistan but in a book about partition i read that Lahore had 500,00 hindus before Partition and less than 1000 after.

 

Even now in Delhi matrimonials the families will say "from Rawalpindi, or Gujrat or Lahore" The refugee camps in Delhi turned into districts and now are very affluent areas.

 

Now if only u could prove it. I think most of the hindu population throughout punjab was from the trader class called Khatri(I think).

And now you talk to me about CLAIMS and backing it up.Talk about misinformation.

Now with regards to me backing up the assertion that "Pakistan was 30% Hindu before partition and claiming to be up on History and maths"

Well get your FACTS straight, i dont even know what you are saying, I never made such a claim, as you can't have Pakistan before 1947, because it didn't exist. I think you probably mean West punjab pre-partition. And i NEVER said it was 30% Hindu.

Why should i provide numbers when i never gave you those STATS? Why should i have to back up something i never said.

I tell you what though- why don't you provide some numbers that India Punjab is  90% Sikh, since you are obviously up on history and maths, Why don't you actually back up your baseless comments? 

 

I never made any comments about the  PUNJABI Muslim population, YET YOU SEEM TO BE AN EXPERT on hindu punjabis  and Sikhs, in your own opinion that is, otherwise you would not have made such comments, that are totally off AND NUMBERS ARE TOTALLY WRONG. Do some research about Punjabi Hindus and their numbers before making any further comments. 

I was simply pointing out that Punjabi Hindus exist, after you casually dismissed them.

You are the one who came out with ridiculous statements and i answered them, i'm addressing your comments, but when you said "your fellow rivivionist" that explains what of person i'm dealing with. A nationalist.

You don't care if punjab is 60%, 70 or 90% sikh. well guess what "Maqsad" i don't care if pre-partition West punjab was 30%, 20% or 10% Hindu. Tell you what shall we say it was 0.000001% will that make you happy?  What difference does it make???? Theres 850million Hindus in India, and we have as many muslims as you do in your Pakistan, that you obvoiusly want to detach from India.

Goodbye 

 

 

 

I am not the proper authority to instruct you guys but in my opinion, Discussion should not go this way. We should not come down to personal ore national level while participating in each and every thread. We must realise that this is an international forum and people really make fun of it when they see Indian & Pakistani fighting on forums also.

 

 

Whosoever claimed that 30% of wetsern pakistan was Hindu (excluding sikhs) before partition was wrong.  

 

We know that approximately 8 million Hindus & sikhs left pakistan in 1947-1950, (half million died and never reached India) while 1 million hindus preferred to stay in pakistan. So It means over 9 million hindus were residing in Pakistan. The total number of people migrated from both sides were equal. After partition we had western pakistan with a total population of 34 million (1951 census). So, total presence of hindus & sikhs in pre-partitioned pakistan was actually more than 25%.

 

Note :Here we are not including Eastern Pakistan or Bangladesh.

 

A total of 15 million people migrated due to partition. 7.5 million muslims went to pakistan & 7.6 million Hindus and sikhs came to India. 80% of this migration took place in punjab & sind only. According to most reliable unofficial figures 1 million people died in the course of partition.

 

After Partition (1951)

 

India had 42 million Muslims that is approx 12% of total population of 360 million

 

While western pakistan had only 1 million hindus & sikhs that is less than 3% of total population of 34 million.

 

If we talk about Punjab only ( Approx 45% population of Pak resides here)

There were around 16% Hindus and 10% Sikhs in this area before partition (approx 5.5 million) . And will you believe, there were only 40,000 hindus & sikhs in Pakistani punjab after 1950. Total population of punjab was 19.8 million.

While Indian Punjab had 150 thousand Muslims out of the total population of 10 million (1.5%).

 

There were 42 million muslims in India at 1951 census, Today we have 140 million Muslims. If we talk about pakistan we find only 0.8 million Hindus as compared to the total 1 million hindus in 1951.

 

Regards

 

Ashok Harsana

 

 

I wonder do the pakistanis include the (Official ) Indians like Dawood Ibrahim, Memon brothers, Chhota Shakeel etc... living in pakistan in their census ?

 

 

 

 

 

[/QUOTE] By Ashok Harsana

 

After Partition (1951)

 

India had 4.2 million Muslims that is approx 12% of total population of 360 million

 

While western pakistan had only 1 million hindus & sikhs  that is less than 3% of total population of 34 million.

 

If we talk about Punjab only ( Approx 45% population of Pak resides here)

There were around 16% Hindus and 10% Sikhs in this area before partition (approx 5.5 million) . And will you believe, there were only 40,000 hindus & sikhs in Pakistani punjab after 1950. Total population of punjab was 1.98 million.

While Indian Punjab had 150 thousand Muslims out of the total population of 10 million (1.5%).

 

There were 42 million muslims in India at 1951 census, Today we have 140 million Muslims. If we talk about pakistan we find only 0.8 million Hindus as compared to the total 1 million hindus in 1951.

 

Regards

 

Ashok Harsana

 

 

 

I actually agree you with TeldeInduz, these figures are way off

 

Thanx for correcting me Omar Bhai

 

Regards

 

Did u read my post carefully ?

 

if I wrote there were 1 million Hindus. I must have missed the word "Sikh"

 

While western pakistan had only 1 million hindus & sikhs that is less than 3% of total population of 34 million.

 

So the total Hindu & Sikh population in pakistan was approx 1 million.

Now in 2005 (see below) it is around 1.3 Million.

You can easily calculate how many hindus will be there ????

 

Even if we consider you figures as correct we can conclude that If Hindus were 0.528 Million and then the Sikh population comes out to be 0.45 Million at the time of partition.

Lets assume that sikh population has not increased since then.

Even in that case the hindus are not more than 0.85 Million.

 

And I am surprised to see that you dont have the idea of Pak's actual current population:

Originally posted by TeldeInduz Modern day Pakistan (2005), population of 150,000,000 has 2% Hindus. So total Hindus in Pakistan (2005) = 2% of 150,000,000 = 3 million.

 

Pakistan's total population in 2005 was 162 million (Estimated)

 

Muslims 159 Million that is 98.0%

Christians 1.62 million that is 1.0%

Hindus and Sikhs 1.3 Million that is 0.8%

Others 0.32 Million

 

Tell me if i am wrong....

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 98.0% Muslims (159 million)
• 1.0% Christians (1.62 million)
• 1.0% Hindus, Sikhs and others (1.62 million)

The populatin of parsis, bahais and ahmedis is around 0.35 million (according to your data), That again proves that i was 100% right when i stated:

Originally posted by Ashokharsana If u dont believe my data then Why should I believe any unknown website?

 

 

The data in that statement of mine is from a neutral official source (British Home Office) that is reputable.It quotes what I say (2.4 million Hindus in Pakistan). Your data is from wikipedia (see later) or some non neutral politically biased website without any international repute. My data is from official censuses, where people were counted, I have no idea where any of your data comes from, but it's not from the official censuses which are the only way to tell the demographics of a country.

Let me provide you a link which you can never deny....   Would you trust an United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report ?   paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=41274   Which say that there were 25% hindu-sikhs in Punjab and 30% hindu-sikhs in sindh province.   & for actual population of pakistan in 2005 see :   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

 

Wiki is a weak source. This is NOT proof. Where does your princeton source say the total number of Hindus/Sikhs in Pakistan (which is what we're discussing), currently or in 1947, and how does this back up any point which you are trying to make in terms of 0.8 million Pakistani HIndus now and 1 million in 1951?