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  <12345 6>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: pashtun tribes
    Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 13:10

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! Angry
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928 		  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 15:51
Pathan actually meant Parthian when it was first used. Parthians were once bactrian before they colonised that region. 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792 		  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 15:54
They didn't colonise that region and they weren't Bactrian.  They were Nomadic Iranians from the Khorassan region and CA steppes who moved into Iran proper after defeating the Seleucids.
 
 
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: 25-Oct-2006 at 16:09
Originally posted by Azmal

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!

 
Actually, the same goes for Pathans all over, and in fact within Pathan groups. If you look at Indian Pathans they clearly do not look like Pakistani Pathans, now that leads to the question of what does a Pathan look like and for that you have to look at the Pathan heartland, which as was pointed out before is the Afghanistan/Pakistan area up till the Indus. Unless you're saying that Pathans originated out of India, in which case you're wrong.
 
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! Angry
 
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.


Edited by TeldeInduz - 25-Oct-2006 at 16:20
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928 		  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 16:22
Originally posted by Zagros

They didn't colonise that region and they weren't Bactrian.  They were Nomadic Iranians from the Khorassan region and CA steppes who moved into Iran proper after defeating the Seleucids.
 
 


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5246/Parthia.html

According to tradition, the first ruler of the Parthians and founder of the Parthian empire was Arsaces I ,who had been a governor under Diodotus,king of the Bactrian Greecs,and who revolted and fled westward to establish his own rule.By 200 BC Arsaces's successors were firmly established along the southern shore of the Caspian Sea.Later, through the conquest of Mitridates I (regned 171-138 BC) and Artabanus (128-124 BC) all of the Iranian Plateau and the Tigris-Euphrates valley came under Parthian control.
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: 25-Oct-2006 at 16:40
Originally posted by maqsad

Pathan actually meant Parthian when it was first used. Parthians were once bactrian before they colonised that region. 
 
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)).
 
 


Edited by TeldeInduz - 25-Oct-2006 at 16:45
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928 		  Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 17:11
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by maqsad

Pathan actually meant Parthian when it was first used. Parthians were once bactrian before they colonised that region. 
 
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)).
 
 


I was referring to the word pathan as used by Sindhis and Panjabis since before the British came to the Indus. Even today its almost synonymous with kidnapper thats why some people don't like to use it or have it used to describe them. A few centuries ago a lot of horsemen in groups, referred to as pathans(parthians) used to kidnap females and kids in the panjab and sindh plains. Because of physical appearance and language similarities I assume bactrians and parthians and other afghans got lumped into this "pathan" description.
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: 25-Oct-2006 at 17:23
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
Actually, the same goes for Pathans all over, and in fact within Pathan groups. If you look at Indian Pathans they clearly do not look like Pakistani Pathans, now that leads to the question of what does a Pathan look like and for that you have to look at the Pathan heartland, which as was pointed out before is the Afghanistan/Pakistan area up till the Indus. Unless you're saying that Pathans originated out of India, in which case you're wrong.
  

This is absurd! Almost all anthropologist describes typical Afghan(Pashtons) look as being long-faced, high-headed and nose-hooked of usually of tall stature. Anthropologist Carleton S. Coon described Afghan/Pashton race in his book The Races of Europe as Irano-Afghans or simply Afghanian.  In addition to blood, being an Afghan(pashton) requires speaking pashto as first language and obeying pashtonwali... Fact of matter is that being a pashtons is a source of pride and thus all those that lack identity claim to be Afghan(Pashtons)!

 

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

It is not about number,  but culture , heredity and identity and most of all survival. Pakistan aimed at being a remedy for Muslims of the Sub-Continent(Hindustan). Pashtoons and Pashtoonkhwah are not of the Indian subcontinent, culturally , politically or even geographically. We are exclusive from them and thus Pakistan continuing to exist is a subcontinental intrusion on Non-Subcontinental peoplethus more accurately Pashtonistan is occupied and pashtons there are occupied people!

 
 
 
 
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



Edited by Batoor - 25-Oct-2006 at 17:25
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792 		  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2006 at 17:24
Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by Zagros

They didn't colonise that region and they weren't Bactrian.  They were Nomadic Iranians from the Khorassan region and CA steppes who moved into Iran proper after defeating the Seleucids.
 
 


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5246/Parthia.html

According to tradition, the first ruler of the Parthians and founder of the Parthian empire was Arsaces I ,who had been a governor under Diodotus,king of the Bactrian Greecs,and who revolted and fled westward to establish his own rule.By 200 BC Arsaces's successors were firmly established along the southern shore of the Caspian Sea.Later, through the conquest of Mitridates I (regned 171-138 BC) and Artabanus (128-124 BC) all of the Iranian Plateau and the Tigris-Euphrates valley came under Parthian control.
 
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.
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: 25-Oct-2006 at 17:34
Originally posted by Zagros

They didn't colonise that region and they weren't Bactrian.  They were Nomadic Iranians from the Khorassan region and CA steppes who moved into Iran proper after defeating the Seleucids.
 
 
 

 

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.

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: 25-Oct-2006 at 17:49
Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by maqsad

Pathan actually meant Parthian when it was first used. Parthians were once bactrian before they colonised that region. 
 
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)).
 
 


I was referring to the word pathan as used by Sindhis and Panjabis since before the British came to the Indus. Even today its almost synonymous with kidnapper thats why some people don't like to use it or have it used to describe them. A few centuries ago a lot of horsemen in groups, referred to as pathans(parthians) used to kidnap females and kids in the panjab and sindh plains. Because of physical appearance and language similarities I assume bactrians and parthians and other afghans got lumped into this "pathan" description.
 
 
 

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 its 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 dont know why and how those that claim to be Afghan/Pashton in their right mind could call themselves Pathan? Confused



Edited by Batoor - 25-Oct-2006 at 18:02
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: 25-Oct-2006 at 18:20
 
This is absurd! Almost all anthropologist describes typical Afghan(Pashtons) look as being long-faced, high-headed and nose-hooked of usually of tall stature. Anthropologist Carleton S. Coon described Afghan/Pashton race in his book The Races of Europe as Irano-Afghans or simply Afghanian.  In addition to blood, being an Afghan(pashton) requires speaking pashto as first language and obeying pashtonwali... Fact of matter is that being a pashtons is a source of pride and thus all those that lack identity claim to be Afghan(Pashtons)!
 
Did you write this and take weed at the same time? Where did I write what the specific features of Pathans were? What I wrote is that the Pashtun heartland is where the most original Pashtun features are found whatever they are.
 
It is not about number,  but culture , heredity and identity and most of all survival. Pakistan aimed at being a remedy for Muslims of the Sub-Continent(Hindustan). Pashtoons and Pashtoonkhwah are not of the Indian subcontinent, culturally , politically or even geographically. We are exclusive from them and thus Pakistan continuing to exist is a subcontinental intrusion on Non-Subcontinental peoplethus more accurately Pashtonistan is occupied and pashtons there are occupied people!
 
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.
 
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

 
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.


Edited by TeldeInduz - 25-Oct-2006 at 18:38
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: 25-Oct-2006 at 18:34
Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by maqsad

Pathan actually meant Parthian when it was first used. Parthians were once bactrian before they colonised that region.
 
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)).


I was referring to the word pathan as used by Sindhis and Panjabis since before the British came to the Indus. Even today its almost synonymous with kidnapper thats why some people don't like to use it or have it used to describe them. A few centuries ago a lot of horsemen in groups, referred to as pathans(parthians) used to kidnap females and kids in the panjab and sindh plains. Because of physical appearance and language similarities I assume bactrians and parthians and other afghans got lumped into this "pathan" description.
 
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 Confused


Edited by TeldeInduz - 25-Oct-2006 at 18:39
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: 25-Oct-2006 at 18:43
Originally posted by Batoor

 

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 its 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 dont know why and how those that claim to be Afghan/Pashton in their right mind could call themselves Pathan? Confused

 
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"
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................
Back to Top
Maziar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Arteshbod

Joined: 06-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1155 		  Quote Maziar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 04:47
Originally posted by Batoor

 

You know i really have problem with the term "Iranian" today this word has lost it's original connotation.


Sorry my friend, but this is your problem, not the problem of scholars.


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.


For your information Iranians called their land always Iran since ancient times, Persia was the name which european gave to this land. Iran was always a multi-ethnical  land, since ancient times and it is today too,  so all people  who live in Iran are Iranians, everyone could come to iran and and join this land and everyone in Iran would see him/her as Iranian without any rasistical feeling. And ironicaly  that Azeri , Arab, Armani, Assyri see theirselves as Iranians!!

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.


LOL oh come on, what is the "real Aryan" in your opinion?
Back to Top
Maziar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Arteshbod

Joined: 06-Nov-2005
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1155 		  Quote Maziar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2006 at 04:50
I really love to live with my Azeri and arab and armani and all other of my brothers and sisters in Iran and i don't care about Aryans at all @Batoor, but it seems to be a problem for you.
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: 26-Oct-2006 at 05:08
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

 
This is absurd! Almost all anthropologist describes typical Afghan(Pashtons) look as being long-faced, high-headed and nose-hooked of usually of tall stature. Anthropologist Carleton S. Coon described Afghan/Pashton race in his book The Races of Europe as Irano-Afghans or simply Afghanian.  In addition to blood, being an Afghan(pashton) requires speaking pashto as first language and obeying pashtonwali... Fact of matter is that being a pashtons is a source of pride and thus all those that lack identity claim to be Afghan(Pashtons)!
 
Did you write this and take weed at the same time? Where did I write what the specific features of Pathans were? What I wrote is that the Pashtun heartland is where the most original Pashtun features are found whatever they are.
 
[QUOTE]It is not about number,  but culture , heredity and identity and most of all survival. Pakistan aimed at being a remedy for Muslims of the Sub-Continent(Hindustan). Pashtoons and Pashtoonkhwah are not of the Indian subcontinent, culturally , politically or even geographically. We are exclusive from them and thus Pakistan continuing to exist is a subcontinental intrusion on Non-Subcontinental peoplethus more accurately Pashtonistan is occupied and pashtons there are occupied people!
 
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.
 
[QUOTE][QUOTE]
 
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. 


Edited by Vedam - 26-Oct-2006 at 05:10
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: 26-Oct-2006 at 06:43
Vedam, the reason is just as history repeats itslef, so also the historical fantasies, but in the process they are sometimes visible without the covering barb of hypocrisy, when the propogandist looses guard.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
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: 26-Oct-2006 at 10:37
Originally posted by Vedam

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"..
 
The whole of Pakistan was a remedy for Muslims of the subcontinent and later it's become Afghanistan..The A in Pakistan is for Afghania so this is pretty obvious. Now when I say Pakistan is a mixture of the subcontinent and central asia if you look at Pakistan, it is the subcontinent up till the Indus River. West of it you're into Central/South West Asia. That is why it's a mixture of central asia and the subcontinent and why Pakistan is classified as part of the Middle East sometimes, and part of the subcontinent others.  
 
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?
 
India is not the entire subcontinent. Punjab is in the subcontinent, NWFP is not in the subcontinent. It's quite basic geography.
 
 "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?
 
I dont know what you're trying to say here. How difficult is it to understand the subcointinent was never a unified country. 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).
 
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. 
 
I dont know what u-turn you mean. Does the i in Pakistan stand for India now or something? Punjab has never been a Hindu majority state and 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.
 
Topic is on Pashtun tribes.


Edited by TeldeInduz - 26-Oct-2006 at 10:39
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: 26-Oct-2006 at 11:07
 
[/QUOTE]
 
The whole of Pakistan was a remedy for Muslims of the subcontinent and later it's become Afghanistan..The A in Pakistan is for Afghania so this is pretty obvious. Now when I say Pakistan is a mixture of the subcontinent and central asia if you look at Pakistan, it is the subcontinent up till the Indus River. West of it you're into Central/South West Asia. That is why it's a mixture of central asia and the subcontinent and why Pakistan is classified as part of the Middle East sometimes, and part of the subcontinent others.  
 
 <
 
 
OK let me get this straight, so now Pakistan is sometimes classed as part of the Middle EastLOL. I think you need do study some basic geography. Even Afganistan is not part of the Middle east.
How hard is it for you to understand, that even if India was never totally unified, Pakistan has always been closely connected with North India. When the Mughals had the 3 capitals of Lahore, Delhi, and Agra they were not thinking Lahore is in some foreign land, the "land of the ancient Pakistanis". It was one nation
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.
  


Edited by Vedam - 26-Oct-2006 at 11:14
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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 0.125 seconds.