Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

pashtun tribes
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
AFG-PaShTuN View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-Sep-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121 		  Quote AFG-PaShTuN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: pashtun tribes
    Posted: 11-Nov-2006 at 00:32
My Tribe wasn't on the list, ajeba da. Confused By the way, i belong to the Dawlatzai Tribe, sub-tribe of the Ghiljais, and the main Pashtun Tribe of North Afganistan.

:: Ghilzai/Ghaljai

The biggest of all Pashtun/Afghan Tribes living today, they number at around 16 million in Greater Afganistan [Amu to Abaseen].

Mirwasi Khan Hotaki, and Shah Mahmud Hotak - The Conquerer of Persia were Ghaljais.

More later.
Back to Top
AFG-PaShTuN View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-Sep-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121 		  Quote AFG-PaShTuN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Nov-2006 at 00:20
Originally posted by The pathan

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Which is the proper homeland of the pathans. Afghanistan or pak ?
 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
 
Migration to Present day pakistan
    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.
 
Migration to india
 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


Complete BS.

Refer to accounts of Herodotus, he mentions a tribe called Paktuek, and their homeland, Pakya, stretching from Abaseen river all the way to the South of Kabul, you think the Paktueks of Herodotus were a different people? Nonsesne, Pashtuns always inhabited this land, it's a proven fact.

Regarding the Lodhi tribe, from what i know, they are a sub-branch of the Ghori Tribe of the Afgans, from Central Afghanistan, they decend from the rulers of the Ghorid Kingdom, and are related to the Afghan Tribe of Suri, from which Sher Shah Suri hailed.
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 17:57
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.
This proves how much of Pashton you really are... specially when you call Pashtonistan/Pakhtonkhaw NWFP! You just got PWND! I don't know how could you... who don't look Afghan, who do not speak and write  Afghani(Pashto) and who have no idea about Pashtonwali or pashton culture or history could really know what the people of Pashtonistan really want?
 
LOL It's really very simple. The people of NWFP do not want to join with Afghanistan. If parts of Afghanistan want to join with Pakistan, that would suit them though. I cannot say that the people of NWFP want to do this or that since no referendum has been carried out, but I know that they would much rather be a part of Pakistan than Afghanistan. In fact 80% of the Afghan refugees into Pakistan want to settle into the area. The scale of mass immigration (which you wont hear about on your Delhi news service) is such that Pakistan is having to issue ID cards to all these Afghans to keep track of them. 
 
I have no idea why you're so hung up about names like "Pakhtunkhwa" when this seems like a minor detail
 

Indeed if you pakis are that sure about royalty of Afghan then lets have a referendum... lets see what they want... why British only included India or Pakistan option in 1947 which forced majoirty of pashtons to boycott the referendum...

 
A referendum right now would almost certainly show 99% of Pashtuns from NWFP wanting to join Pakistan. The reason is simple. Anybody in their right mind would want to join Pakistan over Afghanistan right now for peace, security and prosperity. You're simply out of touch with ground realities. Why do you think millions of Afghans are still flooding into Pakistan even now, and that almost all of them (80%) want to settle in Pakistan and not Afghanistan? In fact, the problem is so large scale, that the government has issued id cards to all Afghan refugees to keep their numbers in check.
 
 
what in this wild world the Pashtons have in common with Pakistani or India? I could understand the reason for Hindu Panjabis and Muslims panjabis dont want to live together  why the f Afghans of Pashtonistan were prevented to rejoin Afghanistan? Think about it you are human, and you even claim to be Afghan  how in this wild world you can shut your eyes to the greatest injustice in history of man kind when the British divide the Muslims Afghans from their ethnic kinsmen into a den of terror we all recognize as Pakistan. Go on, allow us Afghans to measure your true brotherhood to fellow Muslims.....denounce Pakistan for having dutifully served Britain's interests in south Asia.
 
Afghanistan postion has been clear from start.... "We can not recognise the N.W.F.Pas part of Pakistan so long as people of North West Frontier Province have not been given an opportunity, free from any kind of influence, I repeat, from any kind of influence, to determine for themselves whether they wish to be independent, rejoin Afghanistan or become part of Pakistan."
Hosyn Aziz, Afghanistan's Representative at UNO Gen. Assembly (Sept. 1947)
 
 
What kind of influence were the Afghans who voted in the referendum under?
 
 

Considering Khushal Khan Khattak lived during Moghul times, and the word Pathan was coined during British times after the Moghuls, I hardly think you're going to find Pathans like him calling himself a word that had not been invented. Rest assured my out of touch friend, many Pathans call themselves Pathan when speaking English..it's not a big issue, just one way the nationalists like to "big themselves" as being more Pashtun than the majority who couldnt care less.

 

If you'd paid attention to what I've said, you'd know I said when speaking Pashto, Pathans say Pakhtun, when speaking English or other languages Pathans say Pathan, because that is the common language. 

 

 

You need to read more books other then what they teach you in Pakistani Madrassa. The word Pathan was NOT coined during British it was a demagoguery word used by Indians way before British PATHAN basically means girl kidnapper thus it really doesnt matter what British usedhow could any Afghan in right state of mind would use a foreigner denoted offensive word to describe him/her self? Lets say tomorrow the British would call Afghan/pashtons thief or barbarians would you also use these terms to describe yourself? (assuming you are Afghan/pashton not some half breeds whom could not even speak Pashto) It is behind my head to cope with rational behind the usage of word Pathan,  some clowns like you want to use.

 
 
 
The meaning of the word Pathan isnt horseman or kidnapper. You seriously need to get some more education on the subject. It's derived from the British that is true, but it's probably just a sanskritized version of some word or other. If it were this bad, many Pathans or Pashtuns would not use this word, but they do.


Edited by TeldeInduz - 01-Nov-2006 at 18:03
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Batoor View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard

aka azmal.

Joined: 25-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote Batoor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 16:31
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.
 
This proves how much of Pashton you really are... specially when you call Pashtonistan/Pakhtonkhaw NWFP! You just got PWND!  

I don't know how could you... who don't look Afghan, who do not speak and write  Afghani(Pashto) and who have no idea about Pashtonwali or pashton culture or history could really know what the people of Pashtonistan really want?

Indeed if you pakis are that sure about royalty of Afghan then lets have a referendum... lets see what they want... why British only included India or Pakistan option in 1947 which forced majoirty of pashtons to boycott the referendum... what in this wild world the Pashtons have in common with Pakistani or India? I could understand the reason for Hindu Panjabis and Muslims panjabis dont want to live together  why the f Afghans of Pashtonistan were prevented to rejoin Afghanistan? Think about it you are human, and you even claim to be Afghan  how in this wild world you can shut your eyes to the greatest injustice in history of man kind when the British divide the Muslims Afghans from their ethnic kinsmen into a den of terror we all recognize as Pakistan. Go on, allow us Afghans to measure your true brotherhood to fellow Muslims.....denounce Pakistan for having dutifully served Britain's interests in south Asia.

 

Afghanistan postion has been clear from start.... "We can not recognise the N.W.F.P as part of Pakistan so long as people of North West Frontier Province have not been given an opportunity, free from any kind of influence, I repeat, from any kind of influence, to determine for themselves whether they wish to be independent, rejoin Afghanistan or become part of Pakistan."
Hosyn Aziz, Afghanistan's Representative at UNO Gen. Assembly (Sept. 1947)
 
 
 

Considering Khushal Khan Khattak lived during Moghul times, and the word Pathan was coined during British times after the Moghuls, I hardly think you're going to find Pathans like him calling himself a word that had not been invented. Rest assured my out of touch friend, many Pathans call themselves Pathan when speaking English..it's not a big issue, just one way the nationalists like to "big themselves" as being more Pashtun than the majority who couldnt care less.

 

If you'd paid attention to what I've said, you'd know I said when speaking Pashto, Pathans say Pakhtun, when speaking English or other languages Pathans say Pathan, because that is the common language. 

 

 

You need to read more books other then what they teach you in Pakistani Madrassa. The word Pathan was NOT coined during British it was a demagoguery word used by Indians way before British PATHAN basically means girl kidnapper thus it really doesnt matter what British usedhow could any Afghan in right state of mind would use a foreigner denoted offensive word to describe him/her self? Lets say tomorrow the British would call Afghan/pashtons thief or barbarians would you also use these terms to describe yourself? (assuming you are Afghan/pashton not some half breeds whom could not even speak Pashto) It is behind my head to cope with rational behind the usage of word Pathan,  some clowns like you want to use.

 
 


Edited by Batoor - 01-Nov-2006 at 16:36
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 15:05
Originally posted by Vedam

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by kush_boy2003

 
culturally no european will see any difference between indian and a pakisthani, not even cultural.of course there are difference all over subcontonet. there is just a lot of diversity.
 
Culturally, some Europeans due to ignorance will not THINK any difference between Indian and Pakistani. The reason is that a lot of the migration to the West was from (North)western Indians and (Eastern) Punjabi Pakistanis, who arent so different in appearance (though culturally are very different). A superficial knowledge of someone is just the appearance.
 
If you look at Pakistan though, in the North West, the North, the South West, you have people that look completely different to all types of Indians generally. In the East of Pakistan you have people who look a bit like extreme Northwest Indians. Again Northwest Indians are the fringes of India and not the majority or standard Indian look, which is clearly Dravidian.
 
TeldeInduz whether someone is from J & K or Tamil Nadu or Gujarat or Bengal, they are  Indian! We can't be pigion holed.
 
Listen to yourself with your "fringes of India and not having the standard Indian look, which is clearly Dravidian" So i see, conveniently, Punjab and Kashmir are a fringe but not Kerela and Tamil Nadu which are right on the other end. And how about Assam or dont they count?
 
People in these posts keep going on about how tall fair atheletic Indians don't really represent India, how ancient Indian culture doesn't really represent India, its getting very tiresome, what is it sour grapes?
You talk about how punjabis aren't really reprentative of Indians and then go on and on about Pashtuns. How representaive are they of Pakistan - 95%???LOL    
 
India is not Punjab. Punjab is on the fringe of India..hence mixing with Pakistani Punjabis. Tamil Nadu is not representative of the whole of India, BUT it is more representative of India than Punjab (more population).
 
If you look at the average person in central India, they look completely different to the average person in central Pakistan.
 
And I never said Pashtuns were representative of Pakistan. They form a part of the Pakistani people, Punjabis another part, Sindhis, Balochis, and Muhajirs as well as other ethnic groups.
 
My point that Pakistanis look different to Indians on average is very true. On average is the keyword here. if you go to then entire west side of Pakistan you will hardly find anyone who looks like anyone in India. if you go to the East side of Pakistan, you will find some people that look like the people on the Indian border with Pakistan. That's about it. You will not find Bengali looking people in Pakistan or people who look like central, south, southwest Indians (which is what most of India is), except those that have migrated there.


Edited by TeldeInduz - 01-Nov-2006 at 15:09
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Vedam View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97 		  Quote Vedam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 13:17
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by kush_boy2003

 
culturally no european will see any difference between indian and a pakisthani, not even cultural.of course there are difference all over subcontonet. there is just a lot of diversity.
 
Culturally, some Europeans due to ignorance will not THINK any difference between Indian and Pakistani. The reason is that a lot of the migration to the West was from (North)western Indians and (Eastern) Punjabi Pakistanis, who arent so different in appearance (though culturally are very different). A superficial knowledge of someone is just the appearance.
 
If you look at Pakistan though, in the North West, the North, the South West, you have people that look completely different to all types of Indians generally. In the East of Pakistan you have people who look a bit like extreme Northwest Indians. Again Northwest Indians are the fringes of India and not the majority or standard Indian look, which is clearly Dravidian.
 
TeldeInduz whether someone is from J & K or Tamil Nadu or Gujarat or Bengal, they are  Indian! We can't be pigion holed.
 
Listen to yourself with your "fringes of India and not having the standard Indian look, which is clearly Dravidian" So i see, conveniently, Punjab and Kashmir are a fringe but not Kerela and Tamil Nadu which are right on the other end. And how about Assam or dont they count?
 
People in these posts keep going on about how tall fair atheletic Indians don't really represent India, how ancient Indian culture doesn't really represent India, its getting very tiresome, what is it sour grapes?
You talk about how punjabis aren't really reprentative of Indians and then go on and on about Pashtuns. How representaive are they of Pakistan - 95%???LOL    
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 12:06
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Telde is ignorant. He does'nt know that the united punjab was hindu majority & bigger than the western paki punjab.
 
United Punjab was majority Muslim, and United Punjab was bigger than Paki Punjab, but Paki Punjab was bigger than Indian Punjab.
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 12:03
Originally posted by kush_boy2003

 
culturally no european will see any difference between indian and a pakisthani, not even cultural.of course there are difference all over subcontonet. there is just a lot of diversity.
 
Culturally, some Europeans due to ignorance will not THINK any difference between Indian and Pakistani. The reason is that a lot of the migration to the West was from (North)western Indians and (Eastern) Punjabi Pakistanis, who arent so different in appearance (though culturally are very different). A superficial knowledge of someone is just the appearance.
 
If you look at Pakistan though, in the North West, the North, the South West, you have people that look completely different to all types of Indians generally. In the East of Pakistan you have people who look a bit like extreme Northwest Indians. Again Northwest Indians are the fringes of India and not the majority or standard Indian look, which is clearly Dravidian.


Edited by TeldeInduz - 01-Nov-2006 at 12:04
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775 		  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 07:46
Telde is ignorant. He does'nt know that the united punjab was hindu majority & bigger than the western paki punjab.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
kush_boy2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 01-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote kush_boy2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 06:53
 
originally posted by By TeldeInduz
 
India is not the entire subcontinent. Punjab is in the subcontinent, NWFP is not in the subcontinent. It's quite basic geography.
 
No it is not that basic. what is India. Is it British India? then NWFP is  part of India. Is it Mauryan India, then also it is a prat of India.
 
I dont know what you're trying to say here. How difficult is it to understand the subcointinent was never a unified country.
 
what is you issue?? Are you gloating over thae fact that subcontinent was never unified. In fact it was several times.
 
The people living in Pakistani Punjab were not ever Hindu majority in their history and the same perhaps applies to Sindh. They were culturally and religiously different from the people in modern India all the way through their history (exceptions being the British Empire & perhaps Mauryan when people were converting to Buddhism).
 
What historical records do you ahe to prove that they were not? Every muslim invado thought so?
 
culturally no european will see any difference between indian and a pakisthani, not even cultural.of course there are difference all over subcontonet. there is just a lot of diversity.
 
It is a Muslim majority state right now if you combine the two halves. So if anything Punjab should be a Pakistani state, which is obvious from its name anyway. But Pakistanis didnt mind dividing it up like this.
 
That is not very generous. in fact  Eastern Punjab was 80% hindu/sikh at the time of partition. Anyways India was also not muslim majority but Indians let the country get partitioned.
Back to Top
kush_boy2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 01-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote kush_boy2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 06:52
 
originally posted by By TeldeInduz
 
India is not the entire subcontinent. Punjab is in the subcontinent, NWFP is not in the subcontinent. It's quite basic geography.
 
No it is not that basic. what is India. Is it British India? then NWFP is  part of India. Is it Mauryan India, then also it is a prat of India.
 
I dont know what you're trying to say here. How difficult is it to understand the subcointinent was never a unified country.
 
what is you issue?? Are you gloating over thae fact that subcontinent was never unified. In fact it was several times.
 
The people living in Pakistani Punjab were not ever Hindu majority in their history and the same perhaps applies to Sindh. They were culturally and religiously different from the people in modern India all the way through their history (exceptions being the British Empire & perhaps Mauryan when people were converting to Buddhism).
 
What historical records do you ahe to prove that they were not? Every muslim invado thought so?
 
culturally no european will see any difference between indian and a pakisthani, not even cultural.of course there are difference all over subcontonet. there is just a lot of diversity.
 
It is a Muslim majority state right now if you combine the two halves. So if anything Punjab should be a Pakistani state, which is obvious from its name anyway. But Pakistanis didnt mind dividing it up like this.
 
That is not very generous. in fact beastern Punjab was 80% hindu at the time of partition. Anyways India was also not muslim majority but Indians let the country get partitioned. they could have stopped it. Remeber the defeats and partition of 1971
 
 
 
Back to Top
kush_boy2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 01-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote kush_boy2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 06:50
 
originally posted by By TeldeInduz
 
India is not the entire subcontinent. Punjab is in the subcontinent, NWFP is not in the subcontinent. It's quite basic geography.
 
No it is not that basic. what is India. Is it British India? then NWFP is  part of India. Is it Mauryan India, then also it is a prat of India.
 
I dont know what you're trying to say here. How difficult is it to understand the subcointinent was never a unified country.
 
what is you issue?? Are you gloating over thae fact that subcontinent was never unified. In fact it was several times.
 
The people living in Pakistani Punjab were not ever Hindu majority in their history and the same perhaps applies to Sindh. They were culturally and religiously different from the people in modern India all the way through their history (exceptions being the British Empire & perhaps Mauryan when people were converting to Buddhism).
 
What historical records do you ahe to prove that they were not? Every muslim invado thought so?
 
culturally no european will see any difference between indian and a pakisthani, not even cultural.of course there are difference all over subcontonet. there is just a lot of diversity.
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 04:08
last census was in 1998. The 162 million is the figure for 2006 I think. The 2.4 million Hindus was from the 1998 census though.

Edited by TeldeInduz - 01-Nov-2006 at 04:10
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 03:11
Correct me if I'm completely mistaken, but wasn't the last census in 1980? Hence this 162 million figure being followed by (estimated)
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 23:55

Not sure I follow. Who else has done a survey of the Hindu population in Pakistan aside from the Pakistani government through censuses..Joshua Project? Anyhow I dont think census figures are quoted with an error figure, and inaccurate as some of them might be, they're the best estimate of the Pakistani population AFAIK.



Edited by TeldeInduz - 31-Oct-2006 at 23:57
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697 		  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 23:11
Considering how inaccuate population figures for Pakistan are, Are you certain that the different figures quoted aren't just variations within the margin of error?
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 08:06
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Religious minority groups believe that they are under represented in government census counts and claim that they represent 10 percent of the population, rather than the census figure of 4 to 5 percent.The most recent official census estimates place the number of Hindus at 2.44 million, Christians at 2.09 million, and the Ahmadi population at 286,000. The figure for the Ahmadis is inherently inaccurate because they have been boycotting census and registration for electoral rolls since 1974 when they were declared non-Muslims. The Hindu and Christian communities each claim membership of approximately 4 million. Estimates for the remaining communities are less contested and place the total number of Parsis (Zoroastrians), Buddhists, and Sikhs as 20,000 each; and Bahais at 30,000. [2a] (section I).
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 :
 
 
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?
 
It says
 
Pakistan (2005 Est. 162 vs. 1951 Census 34 million)
  • 98.0% Muslims (159 million)
  • 1.0% Christians (1.62 million)
  • 1.0% Hindus, Sikhs and others (1.62 million

This is what wikipedia states. This is NOT correct and you could easily have changed it yourself.
 
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:
 
The figures of Parsees, Buddists, isnt what we're discussing. It's the numbers of Hindus in Pakistan, and you're simply wrong that it was 0.8 million. In fact your figure is 4 times lower, and not just some small error, but a completely foolish estimate.
 
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
 
See more :
 
 
It says:
The percentage of Hindu population in Pakistan came down from 15% in 1947 to 1% in 2003. Likewise in Bangladesh the percentage of Hindu population came down from 30% in 1971 to 9% today
 
Right, now read your politically biased Indian source (Hindutva too do use Western sounding names too, as you know!). The 15% Hindu population in West Pakistan was PRE-partition (but of course they didnt mention that), the 1% is incorrect according to the Pakistani censuses and the Christians themselves. USE BETTER SOURCES WITH SOME NEUTRALITY.
 
 
Other authenticate records claim that Hindus are not more than 0.6% in Pakistan: (0.6% or 9,00,000)
 
See:
 
 
Choose pakistan in second drop down menu...you will see the truth.
 
Ask me for more proofs..
 
Regards
 
I havent checked if that site says what you say. I read this in the beginning and decided not to bother. From the website of the Joshua Project "The mission and passion of Joshua Project is to identify and highlight the people groups of the world that have the least exposure to the Gospel and the least Christian presence in their midst. Joshua Project shares this information to encourage pioneer church-planting movements among every ethnic people group."
 
How is this in anyway authentic or more correct than official censuses from Pakistan, that are quoted by the US State dept and the British government? (this is what I used in my references as I quoted above..which shows 2.4 million Hindus in Pakistan).
 
There is no point picking these obscure websites because they fit what YOU want to believe. There are always some conspiracy pages on the net for almost anything. What better record is there than the official censuses which were carried out by government institutions and are quoted by foreign governments for the demographics? (which I quoted from).


Edited by TeldeInduz - 31-Oct-2006 at 11:39
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
ashokharsana View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 342 		  Quote ashokharsana Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 01:32
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
Your figure for Hindus and Sikhs is still wrong. the link has been given above. There are currently 2.4 million Hindus in Pakistan. The figure of 1.3 million is a ridiculously low figure that you've obviously taken from some Hindutva site claiming victimhood.
 
Hello There,
 
First of all, i never provided any data taken from the hindutva sites.
 
 
 
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
The censuses show that total non Muslims in West Pakistan (including, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhist), was 965,000 in 1951. Not only is this less than the figure that you gave originally, but it is still less than your revised figure even when you add in all the Christians in Pakistan pre-partition!
 
Whats your source of Info which says that...
I just told you the hindu-sikh population and not about the non-muslim population that could be much higher.
 
Anyways, There is not a big difference between 9,65,000 and 1 million
 
Please Note: The population of christians in Pakistan was not more than 50,000 (mainly residing in karachi and rawalpindi). So the total population of hindu and sikhs was around 9,00,000 Is it right ?
 
One more proof:
 
All sources claim that pakistan's population (prior to 1947) had 25 % hindu-sikhs (60-40 ratio), Hindus were 60% of 25% that is 15% and sikhs were 40% of 25% that is 10%.
Is it Correct ?
 
 
 
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
 
 ALL your figures are completely inaccurate. In 2005, there were 2.4 million Hindus ALONE at least in West Pakistan according to the censuses. You can read about it here.
 
Religious minority groups believe that they are under represented in government census counts and claim that they represent 10 percent of the population, rather than the census figure of 4 to 5 percent.The most recent official census estimates place the number of Hindus at 2.44 million, Christians at 2.09 million, and the Ahmadi population at 286,000. The figure for the Ahmadis is inherently inaccurate because they have been boycotting census and registration for electoral rolls since 1974 when they were declared non-Muslims. The Hindu and Christian communities each claim membership of approximately 4 million. Estimates for the remaining communities are less contested and place the total number of Parsis (Zoroastrians), Buddhists, and Sikhs as 20,000 each; and Bahais at 30,000. [2a] (section I).
 
If u dont believe my data then Why should I believe any unknown website ? 
 
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
 No links, no reasoning. Just a load of figures plucked out of your head. 
 
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
 
Your figure for Hindus and Sikhs is still wrong. the link has been given above. There are currently 2.4 million Hindus in Pakistan. The figure of 1.3 million is a ridiculously low figure that you've obviously taken from some Hindutva site claiming victimhood.
 
 
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 :
 
 
It says
 
Pakistan (2005 Est. 162 vs. 1951 Census 34 million)
  • 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:

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
 
See more :
 
 
It says:
The percentage of Hindu population in Pakistan came down from 15% in 1947 to 1% in 2003. Likewise in Bangladesh the percentage of Hindu population came down from 30% in 1971 to 9% today
 
 
Other authenticate records claim that Hindus are not more than 0.6% in Pakistan: (0.6% or 9,00,000)
 
See:
 
 
Choose pakistan in second drop down menu...you will see the truth.
 
Ask me for more proofs..
 
Regards


Edited by ashokharsana - 31-Oct-2006 at 01:43
The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars
Back to Top
TeldeInduz View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 07-Mar-2006
Location: Paraguay
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 857 		  Quote TeldeInduz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2006 at 16:17
Originally posted by ashokharsana

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
Your math is way out in many places and your facts are wrong also. Ignoring a load of errors, here's your biggest obvious error.
 
Total Hindus in West Pakistan in 1951 was 528,000. (census data)
 
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.

 
Did u read my post carefully ?
 
if I wrote there were 1 million Hindus. I must have missed the word "Sikh"
 
See what i wrote:
While western pakistan had only 1 million hindus & sikhs that is less than 3% of total population of 34 million.
 
This is what you wrote.
 
"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."  
 
But let's say you didnt mean to write it and it was an honest mistake, your figures are still totally incorrect.
 
The censuses show that total non Muslims in West Pakistan (including, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhist), was 965,000 in 1951. Not only is this less than the figure that you gave originally, but it is still less than your revised figure even when you add in all the Christians in Pakistan pre-partition!
 
So the total Hindu & Sikh population in pakistan was appro 1 million.
Now in 2005 (see below) it is around 1.3 Million.
You can easily calculate how many  will be hindus there ????
 
 
ALL your figures are completely inaccurate. In 2005, there were 2.4 million Hindus ALONE at least in West Pakistan according to the censuses. You can read about it here.
 
Religious minority groups believe that they are under represented in government census counts and claim that they represent 10 percent of the population, rather than the census figure of 4 to 5 percent.The most recent official census estimates place the number of Hindus at 2.44 million, Christians at 2.09 million, and the Ahmadi population at 286,000. The figure for the Ahmadis is inherently inaccurate because they have been boycotting census and registration for electoral rolls since 1974 when they were declared non-Muslims. The Hindu and Christian communities each claim membership of approximately 4 million. Estimates for the remaining communities are less contested and place the total number of Parsis (Zoroastrians), Buddhists, and Sikhs as 20,000 each; and Bahais at 30,000. [2a] (section I).
 
So the Hindu population alone in Pakistan is 2.44 million, not 1.3 million (Hindus + Sikhs) according to you!
 
 
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.
 
No links, no reasoning. Just a load of figures plucked out of your head. 
 
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)
 
 
My figure was rounded, now if you think about it, if I used 162 million, then there would actually have been a higher number of Hindus according to my calculation. So take the 2-3 million Hindus in Pakistan currently as a lower estimate.
 
 
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.
 
 
Your figure for Hindus and Sikhs is still wrong. the link has been given above. There are currently 2.4 million Hindus in Pakistan. The figure of 1.3 million is a ridiculously low figure that you've obviously taken from some Hindutva site claiming victimhood.


Edited by TeldeInduz - 30-Oct-2006 at 16:49
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Tipu Sultan View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 28-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 271 		  Quote Tipu Sultan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2006 at 11:04
the muslim strenght in india is under estimated according to provate surveys of ngo's the muslims are about 20-22% of the total population of india.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.