Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
How much of pakistan was part of Afghanistan? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 6> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Guests 
Guest 
|
 Quote Reply
 Topic: How much of pakistan was part of Afghanistan?Posted: 26-Jan-2009 at 17:04 |
|
Afghans Kurds and Tajiks are Persian people. This map above indicates that the present Afghanistan was once a part of Pakistan. As Afghanistan of today Pakistan of today did not exist on map, these are political divisions. Afghanistan and Pakistan are both Hindustan. As for history of Afghan plateau and the people are the part of Persian plateau and the people, that is later that the eastern section was annexed to India with all its people and politics being mostly Orthodox Muslims like the Kurds and Baluch who have been long cut off from central Iran. Iranians being attached to the house of Shiite did lose its greater part because of religious differences. It is said in history that the King of Iran Khisrau Parvez was the one who had received the message of Prophet Mohammad to accept Islam as religion who enraged at the simple manner of the speech and messanger, first tore the message and then had ordered the governor of Yemen to arrest the preacher. Prophet Mohammad hearing that had said that the kingdom of this man will also tear apart similarly.
|
|
 |
|
|
arze
Janissary 
Joined: 26-Jan-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 17 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jan-2009 at 22:01 |
|
^ Afghanistan is not Hindustan, neither is western part of pakistan. stop making bs up.
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 06:35 |
|
There needs no description, but an open eye for vision. Edited by Cheeta - 27-Jan-2009 at 06:48 |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 06:36 |
My dear! This is not politics, this is history. Just pick up a book once, listen more and talk less.
|
|
|
|
|
Aryan de Pakhtra
Janissary
Joined: 27-Jan-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 13 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 15:07 |
|
Afghanistan is in southern Central Asia. The natural border with the Indian subcontinent is the Indus River.
Also, Afghanistan is not part of Iranian plateau, as genetic studies prove mainstream`Persians are Elamites and have no relation with Afghans. The Lut Desert is the natural border. Edited by Aryan de Pakhtra - 27-Jan-2009 at 15:36 |
|
|
|
|
MarcoPolo
Pretorian 
Joined: 05-Jul-2007 Location: Planet Earth Online Status: Offline Posts: 190 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 18:51 |
|
What does that map have to do with this thread? This thread is about Afghanistan and Pakistan and their relationship. I'd request everyone to please focus on the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 20:06 |
|
It is to show that as the Durand line of the western Pakistan cuts inter-related people apart, similar is the Vahga border that makes divide two Punjabs. The matter is not concerned just upto the Afghan nationality.
|
|
|
|
|
arze
Janissary
Joined: 26-Jan-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 17 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 01:08 |
|
afghanistan and western pakistan do not belong to hindustan. you sound like some indian nationalistic who claim weird things
Edited by arze - 28-Jan-2009 at 01:08 |
|
|
|
|
MarcoPolo
Pretorian
Joined: 05-Jul-2007 Location: Planet Earth Online Status: Offline Posts: 190 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 04:22 |
Agreed.
 There is no movement in Pakistani Panjab, infact they are quite content with the border the way it is and would be the most ardent group that would oppose what the said individual is suggesting. Lets stick to reality/facts, and focus on the point of this AE section.
Again, the topic of this thread is Pakistan and Afghanistan.(Just in case someone forgot)
Edited by MarcoPolo - 28-Jan-2009 at 04:23 |
|
|
|
|
Afghanan
Chieftain 
Durr e Durran Joined: 12-Jun-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1098 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 04:39 |
The answer depends on the question.
The answer is yes if you are referring to empires that spread from Afghanistan than all of Pakistan, and parts of India, Iran were part of it and different time periods:
Ariana which stretched as far as the Hindu Kush straddling Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Kushans (conquered Bactria, made their capital at Bagram and moved south and southeast towards Pakistan and India), the Saka Confederations moved east after the Kushans took Bactria and conquered/occupied territory in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The Hephtalites came from the Hindu Kush and swept over all of Central Asia, including Iran, Afghanistan..where they had a capital in Bamiyan (where the giant Buddha statues were built) and spread their empire eastwards towards Pakistan and India where they built another capital in Sialkot. When they were dispersed, they remained in Afghanistan in Tocharistan. The Ghaznavids with their capital at Ghazna conquered almost all of Iran, Central Asia, Pakistan, and parts of India. Babur (founder of the Moghul dynasty) had his capital in Kabul, Mirwais Khan Hotaki ruled from Kandahar to Peshawar, and his son took the Safavid throne, Ahmad Shah Durrani's Afghan empire included all of Pakistan, parts of India, and Iran.
The answer is no if you are talking about the country with the borders of what we know today as Afghanistan, which was sketched up by the British and the Russians to create a buffer between them during the reign of Emir Abdur Rahman Khan. His predecessors, Mir Yaqub and Sher Ali led some disastrous campaigns against British India, which led to territorial concessions in what is today NWFP.
Edited by Afghanan - 29-Jan-2009 at 05:18 |
|
|
The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest.
~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 21:35 |
Kabulees love their City so much that if be away draw a sigh of pain for the grave memory of their home. They name it 'Kabul Jan' and praise it a lot.
Bannu is loved most by the Bannu people called Bannusis who call it 'Bannee Gul' or the Rose Bannu. It is a small city on the road from Peshavar to Dera Ismail Khan.
Chitral is the city rather a big town in the north of Pakistan and Chitralis being everywhere in the world possess ties to their land and the mountainous region naming it 'Jannat Chirtar' or the Paradise Chitral.
Then is Lahore which is in the heart of Punjab Province and is loved a lot by its inhabitants. Sada Lahore or our Lahore is cried by them claiming that he who is not known to Lahore is not a Pakistani. Though there is no trans-border tussle in the region but the people of the eastern part do have a great desire to easily go and visit Lahore, espacially Sik'hs simply love the city as a sacred place to them.
|
|
|
|
|
MarcoPolo
Pretorian
Joined: 05-Jul-2007 Location: Planet Earth Online Status: Offline Posts: 190 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 06:35 |
Lets not forget Shah Shuja, who infact colluded against the Afghan rulers(his own family so to speak) and played an integral part in allowing the strategic revenue generating and agricultural rich/breadbasket regions(Peshawer Valley, Indus Valley of Sindh/Panjab) to be taken over by the British and their protectorate(Sikhs). A factor which severely stunted Afghanistan's ability to sustain itself, perpetuates its isolation/infighting and limits its potential especially when we consider its historical past. Shah Shuja stands out as an individual who represents the epitomy of divide and rule, I dont know how he is known today in Afghanistan, but his actions where equally quite detrimental to Afghanistan as a nation state.
The British where notorious as colonial rulers for causing political and ethnic strife wherever they left their mark, particularly in the Middle East region, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia but also in Africa. Despite a lapse of 60 years or more, the ramifications of their rule are still being felt the world over.
Out of curiousity, Afghanan, do you think the British would have eventually pushed further into Afghanistan had World War II not been so disastrous for them and/or they remained the colonial rulers of South Asia? Or if Afghanistan had more resourses to offer, would there have been greater impetus in securing it? Would this have been a positive or negative thing in the modern political sense of the region in our times? Im curious, as we often read that Afghanistan was left as a buffer state, and due to the logistical nightmare of mounting a campagin to annex it would have required considerable effort. A simple agreement with Russia(itself overextended) seems too simplistic of a reason. While not discounting the fighting spirit of the people as a factor which certainly proved considerable, they(British) did send expeditions/forces in this regard on several occasions and had a reputation for their resolve in accomplishing tasks which were in the interest of ''her majesty's Empire''. They had accomplished many ''impossible'' tasks and previously unconquered regions before thanks to the advances of modern warfare and technology. I wonder, what in the ultimate sense, truly stopped them at the border. anyhow, whats your take on the issue? Edited by MarcoPolo - 29-Jan-2009 at 06:44 |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 17:56 |
|
My own take is that after they conquered Lahore, they pretty much saw the rest of the area as unnecessary and causing too much grief for too little gain. Lahore was considered a Frontier town in the Raj days and Rawalpindi was the HQ of the Britsh Army on the North West Frontier.
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 20:12 |
|
The British were of the third degree category in their Indian diplomacy . They had been most keen for usurping lands in India with their plots, treachery and the recruiting of selfish local lieutenants. They did not spare any unfair play to achieve their goals. After the battle of Gandamak near Kabul in 1842, when the one only injured man Surgeon William Brydon of the big English force of more than sixteen thousand did arrive at the Michni Post near the Torkham Gate of Khyber Pass(now Pakistan), the English were much shocked. Similar was the fate of the two and a half thousand force in Maivand near Qandahar in 1880. It was only disaster and the stiff resistance that made the British to change their Afghan policy declaring it a Buffer Zone. It was by obliging to and not by choice. Contrary to the action of Afghans or Pathans in the Afghan land their career in India was on the contrary. The pathans were recruited and used to overcome the revolt for freedom of the Indians in 1857 and Delhi was captured and subjugated with the aid of Pathans, Punjabis and Sikhs. Pathans have been most liked by the British for their being keen in fighting against own brethren. In Afghanistan may be because of variety of different races they had not been able to muster the favourites. Images 1- Last stand of the British force in the battle of Gandamak1842 ; 2- The only survived of the British Garrison Surgeon William Brydon reaching Jalalabad1842 ; 3- Disaster of the force in Maivand near Qandahar July, 1880 ; 4- Mounted battery fleeing from Afghan pursuit in Maivand July, 1880. Edited by Cheeta - 29-Jan-2009 at 20:20 |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 05:00 |
|
All of n.w.f.p.....were most of the pashtuns live who still call themselves afghan.
|
|
|
|
|
arze
Janissary
Joined: 26-Jan-2009 Online Status: Offline Posts: 17 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 18:12 |
|
^ most pakistani pashtuns dont call themselves (afghans), yes they call them selves pashtuns but not afghans. Many Pakistani pashtuns are proud Pakistanis. Pakistans army is made up of 25% pashtuns.
|
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 22:27 |
There is no quarrel in that. Afghan is the name in Persian and that general term used for the nationality in the world. Pushtun is the linguistic name in the language 'Pushto' and it is rather a narrowly name in own language. In Urdu and Hindi it is termed as Pat'han. Now as far is the political quarrel and jealousy of Cross-Durand nature, that is to be kept in mind that there are major tribes of Afghans/Pushtuns in Pakistan rather than in the present Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm
Janissary
Joined: 10-Dec-2008 Location: online-offline Online Status: Offline Posts: 19 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 07:04 |
That sounds strange. Is that claim really true or are you just making this up? |
|
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 21:17 |
|
Pashtuns comprise over 15.42% of Pakistan P or 25.6 million people. In Afghanistan they make up an estimated 39% to 42% of the population or 12.4 to 13.3 million people. The exact numbers remain uncertain, particularly in Afghanistan, and are affected by approximately 3 million Afghan Refugees that remain in Pakistan, of which 81.5% or 2.49 million are ethnic Pashtuns. An unknown number of refugees continue to reside in Iran. A cumulative population assessment suggests a total of around 42 million across the whole region The Notable Afghan Tribes of Afghanistan are Ghilzai and the Durrani (Ahmad Shah's tribe). Others include the Wardak, Jaji, Tani, Jadran, Mangal, Khugiani, Safi, Mohmand and Shinwari. Those major tribes in Pakistan are the Tareen, Yusufzai, Tarklani, Mohmand, Mohammadzai, Niazi, Ghilzai, Lodhi, Suri, Marvat, Lohani, Kakar, Mando, Jadoon, Mahsood, Wazir, Khatak, Orakzai, Davar, Bangash, Bajauri, Swati, Afridi, Bangash, Turi and Banuchi. In major classification Pushtuns primarily are divided into four sections that further get divide into tribes and clans and further into sub-divided branches. Rarely some clan does not exist across border but may have its central region on any of the side. 1- Sarbani 2- Batani 3- Ghourghushti |
|
|
|
|
hmmm
Janissary
Joined: 10-Dec-2008 Location: online-offline Online Status: Offline Posts: 19 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 01:53 |
Thanks for the information. I did not realize that these many Pashtuns are refugees. How many Pashtun refugees are in Iran? Seems like almost 10% of the total Pashtuns are refugees.
|
|
|
|
There There are different categories of people who have their sense of humour and dealing. Sensitive and honourly people do concludeand do understand the matter by just a signal or gesture. Those who need a talk or discussion with are of secondary degree and conclude the gross condition of the matter by seeing the results and by persuasion. The third and the last is that of the ones who just want a blow to understand and come to terms with. These people do not pay attention and put a deaf ear to any sufferings and troubles of other people unless and untill they are made obliged to, to conclude that they can not by any means do that. |
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 6> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.108 seconds.
