How much of pakistan was part of Afghanistan?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23686
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 02:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How much of pakistan was part of Afghanistan?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: How much of pakistan was part of Afghanistan?
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 01:38
| were all the highlands of pakistan part of afghanistan before at one point? that would mean all the land west of river Indus. |
Replies:
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 01:50
| Afghanistan is just a runaway part of a 300 year old country originally founded by a Multani called Ahmad Shah Baba. Multan is in Pakistan and so is the winter capital of the old Durrani empire, peshawar. So it is also quite feasable to say that the highlands of Afghanistan once belonged to Pakistan. The main confusion arises because of the name "Afghanistan" which Pakistan is no longer known by. There are currently more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan also. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 08:16
| Pannini belonged to the Peshawar valley and was definetly what can today be called a Hindko. Before the rise of the Bactrian-Mangian complex in northern Afghanistan which was the cradle of Iranian civilization this region was definetly Indo-Aryan. The modern Tajiks are the direct descendent of the the Bactrian people. One Iranian tribe stayed behinde in the Himalayas while the Iranians were moving out of the sub-continent and these are the Pakthoons who Herodotus identifies as the tribe of Pactiyan and Paktuki (Pakhtun Khwa). That is why their langauge is best preserved like many people in the Himalyas like Brushuso and Balti and is the closest to Proto-Iranian. Then in about 1000 A.D the Pakhtuns started expanding east ward and south east ward and west ward assimalting may populations maybe predominently Indo-Aryan. This process of assimilation can be peeked in the fact that Hindkos 30 % of Pakhtoonistan associate themselves more with Pakhtuns than with Punjabis even though their language is very similar to Punjabi and their percentage is likely to decline more as many just start calling themselves Pakhtuns. Just as Niazis are even more likely to be assimilated among the Punjabis. Then in 1200 A.D the Balochs originally a west Iranian tribe moved into Balochsitan assimalting an indo-aryan prakrit speaking population. And that is hwo we arrive at the landscape which we see today. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 08:49
| I think that the tall and short of it is that we should not take modern boundaries too seriously and think that the region from Pakistan to the Afghanistan's Pakhtun belt was bascially a very porous area and there really ever was any well defined boudary. |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 03:22
This is ridiculous! People's never get defined by the place of their birth...but by their race, culture and blood. More over |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 05:38
|
But the British Raj took it from the Sikhs who took it from the Afghans. Afghanistan, at its height, included all of Pakistan and all the way to Delhi. Oh, and by the way, people always get defined by the place the are born. Not just the place they grew up, and their ancestry. That is why I am sure you can be defined as an American! ------------- |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 15:31
Only Articles of Durand treaty. Link
In other word.. the area which later British called Settle area were the area where Brits took from Sikh while the "tribal agencies" FATA and PATA were forcefully taken away from Afghanistan under Durand treaty.
Now the claim that place of birth of people defines their ethnicity and origin is too ridicules to replay to. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 15:51
|
The Brits are long goine, except in Afghanistan where they came back for another encore. And as for losing territory forcibly and crying about it (yet another True Afghan trait, must be all that daal), well Afghanistan started doing that since 1799, when Rajit Singh was so thoughtfully made Gov of Lahore by Zaman Shah. ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 17:56
By race and blood I presume you are referring to genetics. Are you trying to say that Ahmad Shah Baba was some sort of cloned product of a unique race known as the popalzai?  If someone outside of South Asia were to look at this picture they would mistakenly identify him as a Sikh. And culture? What is culture besides a fusion of historical traditions, languages and crowd psychology? Even then like I said elsewhere the state of Afghanistan is an uneasy patchwork of Indic(pashtun), Iranic(dari) and Turkic(uzbek, hazara, turkomen) cultures with quite a bit of diversity of all sorts including language, sect and phenotype. It is well known how tense relations between these groups can get, do I need to remind you with examples? And as far as pakistan holding religion as a base for it's identity it can also easily be said that afghanistan is doing the exact same along with forcing the official adoptation of two languages(pashto and farsi) to stitch all these cultures together in a 300 year old country created by a multani named ahmed. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 19:11
|
Maqsad, he born in Multan because his father (or some other reletive) was Gov of Sindh province under the Mughals, Multan being the Capital of Sindh at that time ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 20:40
| I'm not saying his entire clan had been in Multan for 2000 years, I am just emphasizing that his family must have been tied down in Multan. Generally speaking the mughals in the easternmost parts of the empire tended to intermarry with some of the natives to an extent as well. It's possible this was the case with his clan also. |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 21:06
No body can deny the treason of Afghan ruler... take pashttonisan demand as example...on one hand the bloody monarch recognized Pakistan as state in 1947 two months after it come to being
and what does reorganization a state means? It mean accepting it border
on other hand in 1949 they organize a loya jarga that denounce the Durant treaty. On one hand they try to fool people with da pashtonistan zemong form Kabul radio on other hand during 1948,65 and 71 they not only done nothing to regain their rightful land but even facilitate the flow of Jahadi from Jalalabad and Kabul to fight Kafirs. Indeed the reason why there has been double police or lack of police regarding pashtonistan is because first Durand line did little against unity of pashton.... this line was nothing but imaginary line in the sand...which no pashtons have ever accepted nor will ever accept
second because the return of pashtonsitan would have had undermine to the Kabul ruler
the eastern Afghans in pashtonsitan living under influences of British has been very political aware and it would be hard for Kabul rulers to manipulate them. This is why during Pakistani election in 60s |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 21:32
This is ridiculous! People's never get defined by the place of their birth...but by their race, culture and blood. More over
By race i mean Afghanian race... which according to Anthropologist Carleton S. Coon is "The long-faced, high-headed, hook-nosed type, usually of tall stature, which forms the principal element in the population of Iran, Afghanistan, and the Turkoman country, and which is also present in Palestine, parts of Arabia, and North Africa. It is probably related to the old Corded type of the Neolithic and Bronze Age." The Races of Moreover Ahmad shah Durrani as not popalzia he was Sadozia..it is just that most people who have no idea about afghan tribal structure try to claim all Sadozia's as Durrani...which ridiculous... Durranis are only those descendent of Ahmad Shah.
bawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa now this is what i call trying to pulling aces form.... but no one can deny that the reason Sikh looks different then rest of Indic people is because armies of various kings from Afghanistan were roaming the plan of Punjabs for over thousands years.
Pashtun--Indic? bawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. The same reason that
Afghanistan state signifies what is left of afghan empire drawn by blood of her own people...it is not a state bestowed for servitude of Saheeb...afghan identity is well established
during the civil war while each ethnic group had arm of their own none fought for independent but only to gain power
this should tell you that religion is not the reason that holds Afghanistan together
but its culture unlike Pakistan. |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 21:45
This is false.. Im not sure about Ahmad Durrani birth place. but i know that his father was not in governor of |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 21:55
|
maqsad, Can you tell me where you get the information that Ahmad shah Durrani was born in
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 21:57
GHaffar Khan spent the 60's in Afghanistan. As for 48, 65,71, Pakistan has two or three divisions on the border with Afghanistan and could have dispatched any aim to regain the "rightful land", not to mention the little fact that ost of Afghanistans food came from Pakistan, and Ayub Khan could simply tell the Afghans to find some other supply for food. ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 22:04
That sounds ridiculous. The genetics of Afghanistan clearly show a high admixture of siberio-mongoloid genes. Have you ever actually met more than a dozen Afghans in your life?
Popalzai and Sadozai(not zia) are just tribal affiliations. Nobody in their right minds can say that the members of these tribes(which are spread over hundreds of miles) have a common heritage and no outside admixture. But let me guess, you are proposing that, am I right?
bawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa now this is what i call trying to pulling aces form.... but no one can deny that the reason Sikh looks different then rest of Indic people is because armies of various kings from Afghanistan were roaming the plan of Punjabs for over thousands years.
Hold on a second here, if the armies of various kings from Afghanistan were roaming the plains of punjab for thousands of years then should the sikhs not have at least as much mongol admixture as central afghans? Let me repeat the question for you once again. You say that the Sikhs look like Afghans because of thousands of years of admixture from Afghan armies, right? Ok assuming this is true then why do we not see any mongol looking sikhs and why do we see so many mongol/siberian looking pashtuns? Forget about the hazaras now I am just talking regular afghan/pashtuns now. Because according to your simple logic if Afghans were mixing with punjabis for thousands of years then punjabis should get some of that mongol blood passed to them also but we don't see any evidence of that. Wait--did all those afghan kings selectively leave behind the siberian/mongol looking soldiers before they went to roam the punjab? LOL you have no idea about Sikh history nor do you know which parts of Asia all of them came from, do you?
I really don't know what you have been reading and smoking but lets just take only 3 of the ethnic groups of Afghanistan. Pashtuns--they have tried to secede as pashtunistan from Afghanistan and join with parts of Western pakistan and form a pashtun homeland. Tajiks--we know there have been secessionist movements which want to dump the pakhtuns and unite Tajikistan, Herat, parsiwan areas(mainly some cities) of Afghanistan including Hazara areas. Uzbeks--give me a break, these people are refugees and would unite with uzbekistan in a heartbeat. Only reason they stuck on in Afghanistan was to gain more power against pashtun domination and to expand their pan turkic sphere. Dostum ring a bell? Heratis--do I even need to say anything here? They are already being taken over by Iran as I write this. Not really an ethnic group. |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 22:05
I have read in more than one place that he was born in Multan. But since to you it doesn't matter where he was born, why worry so much?  |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 22:10
You are creating straw men that weren't even there. Nobody has said that the place of a person's birth defines their ETHNICITY but rather it defines a PART of their IDENTITY. Show me where anyone(besides you) even mentioned a direct connection between ethnicity(genetics) and place of birth? |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 03:25
During 48, 65,71 Pakistani later come to Afghanistan and were assured personally by the king that Afghanistan will not join the war against Pakistan and also that Afghanistan will not allow india to use her territory against Pakistan. Zahir Shah word was We have difference over Pashtonistan with As for as export and important the only that comes from Pakistan is plastic toys and cheap Desi useless products while almost all of Afghanistans exports goes under Pakistan name just last year Pakistan profited $200 million dollars from afghan carpet exports which is lebeled with made in Pakistan stickers. The good news is that this all is about to change Chakhabur will provide a alternating sea access to Afghanistan and central asia if bloody soviet had not invaded this would have happen long ago the Shah of Iran was the one that purpose this to Afghanistan. Let us just hope that IRA falls asap the geo-politic of region will change. |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 04:10
what Genetic of
When you pronounce pashto...specially Kandhari pashto the zie is pronounce as zai(E) like ppl say Karzai but native speaker pronounce it Karzee. Anyways we are not talking about purity of Pashton/Afghan race but we are discussing the norm--generally--majority pashton look.
bawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa now this is what i call trying to pulling aces form.... but no one can deny that the reason Sikh looks different then rest of Indic people is because armies of various kings from Afghanistan were roaming the plan of Punjabs for over thousands years.
Hold on a second here, if the armies of various kings from Afghanistan were roaming the plains of punjab for thousands of years then should the sikhs not have at least as much mongol admixture as central afghans? Let me repeat the question for you once again. You say that the Sikhs look like Afghans because of thousands of years of admixture from Afghan armies, right? Ok assuming this is true then why do we not see any mongol looking sikhs and why do we see so many mongol/siberian looking pashtuns? Forget about the hazaras now I am just talking regular afghan/pashtuns now. Because according to your simple logic if Afghans were mixing with punjabis for thousands of years then punjabis should get some of that mongol blood passed to them also but we don't see any evidence of that. Wait--did all those afghan kings selectively leave behind the siberian/mongol looking soldiers before they went to roam the punjab? As for as Sikh are you denying the general Sikhs are Indic people? where those light skin and afghanian looking Sikh come from? hu? mars? or Angreez had something to do with it? lol LOL you have no idea about Sikh history nor do you know which parts of Asia all of them came from, do you?
[QUOTE] I really don't know what you have been reading and smoking but lets just take only 3 of the ethnic groups of Afghanistan. Pashtuns--they have tried to secede as pashtunistan from Afghanistan and join with parts of Western pakistan and form a pashtun homeland. Tajiks--we know there have been secessionist movements which want to dump the pakhtuns and unite Tajikistan, Herat, parsiwan areas(mainly some cities) of Afghanistan including Hazara areas. Uzbeks--give me a break, these people are refugees and would unite with uzbekistan in a heartbeat. Only reason they stuck on in Afghanistan was to gain more power against pashtun domination and to expand their pan turkic sphere. Dostum ring a bell? Heratis--do I even need to say anything here? They are already being taken over by Iran as I write this. Not really an ethnic group.
puffffffffffff and would u tell me when there was a separatist movement of uzbak? tajik? and others? hu? did u pull that from... ... lol even during the civil war there was no talk of division and yet
massod fight until last drop of his blood for Afghan name not for Tajik or anything
the same holds for Islmail khan and so on.. Dostom on other hand is a dog but even a dog like him will not dare to talk about division
cause he will know that will be his last day on earth. So sorry to break you Indic heart
we simple do not have had BLA or Pashtonsitan liberation army
or Sindi Deish or Sarkai
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 06:08
|
So? We went to India before 65 and 71, to get such assurance. The reason Zahir Shah said what he said was far less a desire not stab as muslim brother, and far more with the fact that he had to face 3 divisions plus FC not to mention Pakistans main airbase at Peshawar.
And what the hell are you talking about useless toys. Where is you source? Pakistan provides upto 70% of Afghanistans grain, and it is not considered export rather, it is reserved for Afghanistan and sold at a lower price than in Pakistan. As for the agreement with Iran, more power to that. The less we have to do with the basketcase that is Afghanistan the better. ------------- |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 12:12
I am just using my own eyes. You want me to provide pictures now? Do you actually deny the altaic admixture in non-hazara afghans? 
Hahaha if that is so then why did you spell one zai like zai and the other zai like zia two words after it?  No I am not talking about the purity of the pashton race at first but when you insist that Sikhs and Punjabis look like they look because of Afghan armies(and not trickle immigration) then I will ask you a very legitimate question---if most pashtons in Afghanistan have an altaic bone structure, or traces of it, then why do none of the sikhs who "look like afghans because of afghan armies roaming the punjab" according to you...why do these sikhs not have altaic features also? What's next, you are going to deny that Kyrgyzistan has no altaic admixture? 
Lol so you admit dostum would reject pashtun domination in a heartbeat and either secede or join Uzbekistan. After all that is why he killed a few trucks worth of talibs right? Which you afghan nationalists tried to pass off as all pakis to hide the dirty truth!  Also do I need to remind you how easily parts of Afghanistan have been chopped off and taken by Iran and Russia? I mean right now in front of your noses Herat is being taken away from you by Iran without even firing a single shot! |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 12:17
Hahahahahaahahahahaahahaha that's funny. First of all the #1 export of Afghanistan to and through pakistan is opium and heroin. This is handled entirely by the pashtun mafia and the CIA and maybe some of their collaborators in the ISI and the pakistani govt gets nothing out of it. That accounts for 1/3 the GDP of Afghanistan according to the world bank and the IMF. Next form of easy money for Afghans is smuggling. You have heard about places like Karkhano and Barra I imagine right, Mr. Expert? |
Posted By: isami
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 09:03
| paki moderators with hiddenagenda and paki propoganda machine runs this forum, red clay is also a paki  and  he is the supporter of pakistani viewpoint ,indian(hindu,muslim)  bashing is the sole purpose of this site.only paki views are supported ,or islamic fundamentalism is supported here. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 09:54
|
Pakistani propaganda machine has taken over an internet forum? Wow, this is the second greatest accomplishement ever, right behind having one or two people tune in to the news on state TV, ------------- |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 20:19
|
Television has soo changed in Pakistan, there's like 40+ channels on basic tv.. such a change from just 10 years ago! We even have regional languages too, definately a step in the right direction :) Going back to the point of this forum, there was a special on AVT Khyber (Pashto language television) showing how several ancient Afghan colonies(Arghun) are still to be found in northern Sindh province and came to rule over the vast area. On the show before that, they did a special on the Afghan(Pashtun) tribes that came to dominate Lahore and some that established Dynasties in Kasur. According to what I can gather from this documentary, and what history tells us, A considerable portion of Pakistan has at one point or another been part of Afghanistan if not ruled and colonized by them directly.
Even now, if you look at population shifts from the tribal areas and other Pashtun(Afghan) areas of Pakistan, they can maintain only a limited population, when one tribes numbers exceeds a certain limit or resources get scarce leading to inter-tribal feuds, there is a natural process of migration eastwards towards the fertile plains and river beds of the Indus (Sindh/Panjab) and the Peshawer Valley which runs eastward to join the Indus again which are areas that can sustain large populations. Infact, most of Pakistan's population arch is along these very areas.
Also, I think, if recent history is any indicator, it seems that stability in one country is directly tied to stability in the other which shows that there is still considerable linkage between the two countries despite being officially and politically two seperate places.
|
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 14:54
|
First of all my regards to all fellow members and old friends afterward as far as the main topic is concerned I would just say (not starting a flame war) that the Afghan Empire streched up till Indus River, while the rest part of current Pakistan was a come-go state which was taken by Afghans and then reTaken by sikhs over time several times.
As far as Ahmad Shah Baba is concerned I would like to just add that he was a pashtun whose family was settled in Multan then a part of Khorasan-e-Kabeer (Current day Afghanistan) and I don't think that if some one is born in a Hindu Village he has to be a Hindu, or if someone is born in a Muslim village he has to be a muslim.
Same goes with ones ethnic it doesn't matter if a Khattack is born in Islamabad, he still will be a Pashtun Khattack, same goes with Ahmad Shah Baba.
As a good example we can take Joseph Stalin, who was born in the City of Gori (now a part of Georgia) but was the supream leader of Russian Empire and still is known as an Russian leader, not an Georgian leader.
So I guess all friends have got my point.
Dear Sparten,
First of all nice to read your topics after a long while, and I would like to just point out to you that "Where there is a will there is a way", so I don't really think that those 3 divisions were the main cause... if that was the case then now that the ENTIRE PAKISTAN ARMY (apxt. 500,000) is on the border, why can't they stop the So Called Terrorists from getting in to Pakistani soul and and then using their own soul against them (Pakistani) .
I am sure you got the point what I wanted to say....... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 19:30
|
Gharani maara is nice to see you back. Gharani,. there is a big difference between an insurgency which a country and a military is divided over, and a conventional war. Incidentally Pakistan has 4 divisions in FATA/Frontier, the two which are always stationed there and two additional, out of about 25 in total in the PA. ------------- |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 21:06
|
@ Sparten
Yes dear nice to read of you as well and thanks for the info/tip of 4 divs.
Dear what I ment was that then Zahir Shah could had done the same like what is going on right now. I am sure you pretty much know the Tribal people who mostly will go against anyone who tries to occupy them, but not against another brother of themselve.
I mean I am sure that majority of Tribal people are divided in to Afghanistan and FATA, one brother at one side and the other at other side of the line.
So it would had been very much easy for Zahir Shah who had more influence then the current government in the Tribal Area, to bring Pakistan to a chaos within its on limits and without any conventional war......
While more then half of PA was on Indian border and as you yourself mentioned there were only two divisions then ....... as compared to 4 of them now (who has totaly lost its credibality to the Nation and the World).... So things then would had been much much more easier.
-------------
|
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2008 at 21:23
|
Dear Harramulla Sulla,
I didn't get your point of quoting me for your words that are directed to Sparten.
So can you please solve the confusion? -------------
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 11:27
I must have missed this.  I'm honored. Does this make me an honorary Pakistani? ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 14:23
|
Actually I missed it too in my haste to connect the dots between Harramulla Sulla and one previously known violater of the same ilk (Could it be the same guy? Yup!).
Well, if all you gotta do is to be suspected of having a hidden agenda by certain banned members, then sign me up as an honorary Pakistani too. ------------- |
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 18:17
|
Anyways back to the subject. There was no "Afghanistan" in 1747 if we are to be judging just by Nationalist states. In 1747, Ahmad Shah Durrani took over what is now Pakistan and parts of India. In 1919, when the name "Afghanistan" became official, Pakistan was forming its own national awareness from Britain. Historically there never was a border between the people since the same people occupy both sides of the border. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 20:47
I totaly aggree with your view but what I didn't get was "Quoted".
I mean the word Afghanistan came to existance ever since Ahmad Shah Baba formed alliance between the tribes living in the region and named it Afghanistan.
In 1919 Ghazi Amanullah Khan got the Independence from the British after wich the influence of Britains in Afghan policies were terminated, and it's the day that Afghans celebrate as Independence day not Nations Birthday.
And as you know unlike Pakistan whose Independence day is it's birthday, Afghanistan had a 172 years of existance on the world map, on the day it got its independence from Britains, which happened again in 1989 and...... -------------
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 22:04
|
The British called Afghanistan simply as the "Afghan Frontier" The Russians, Iranians, and British called the Western Portion "Khorassan" The actual name Afghanistan was officially applied by Abdur Rahman Khan. When did Ahmad Shah Baba refer to his empire as "Afghanistan" I'd like to know because I don't have a copy of his autobiography that was written by his Courtly scribe, a Sikh man, who's name I forget.. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 22:22
You have a point with your words but can you tell me "When didn't he refer Afghanistan as Afghanistan???"
I don't know if you believe the online data or not but for your referal I am attaching a CIA Fact Book Page, which tells that;"Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747. "(by usage of word founded, it referes that word Afghanistan was founded ever since, not current Afghanistan).
On the other hand as far as the Britains are concerned, you are telling the fact your self. I mean for sure there was a country by the NAME of Afghanistan which made the Britains make a possessive adjective called AFGHAN (Afghan Front).
And I am sure that you do know, STAN means ( (ŘŻ ŘŻŘąŮŘŻŮ(اŮŘłŮŘŻŮ) ÚاŰŘ ŘŹŘ§Ű Ř§Ůست(بŮدباش Ř standing (staying)place).
So AFGHAN STAN (place where Afghans stay) and AFGHAN (an adjective showing someone something possessed by Afghanistan, like Afghan Airlines, Afghan Army, Army Team etc.).
Now I would like to see if you have anything which shows that Dur-e-Duran didn't call his country Afghanistan...
P.S:
I know in English Grammar possessive adjective are ("my," "your," "his," "her," "its," "our," "their"), but in modern terminology of English Grammar Nationality is dealt the same. Ex. My Car, Afghan Car.
The link to CIA's page is: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html -------------
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 07:27
|
Well again, I wouldnt go by that source. The best source would be his autobiography, and what was written by courtly scribes of the time in India. I know that when Ahmad Shah took the Moghul empire, he was considered one fo the last Moghul kings and had rings and coins minted in his name. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2009 at 10:29
| One thing is obvious about the Nationalists of Afghan who claim many lands to be the part of the country Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the mountainous barren region that lies between Kabul and Peshawar. The country named today as Afghanistan is a political name and not is really named as Afghanistan ever in history. Neither Peshawar nor Kabul were ever included in Afghanistan. There were three provinces in the last Indian empire under the Delhi government ; Kabul, Qandahar and Herat. It was later when British government marked the boundary of India at Durand line, being the greater part of the Afghan population the country was named as Afghanistan. To be more keen to know the Ghiljis or Khiljis who live in the south east of Afghanistan are the Turkish tribes who have turned Afghans being in the region have been till date the ruling class of Afghanistan since one and half century. Afghanistan is itself a hilly belt between Kabul and Peshawar running south to Suleiman hills and ending in the north touching Hindu Kush. |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2009 at 01:24
|
^^ above does not make any sense, nor has any historical correlation...
@ Gharanai & Afghanan,
The term Afghan should be quite ancient, especially when factoring in the tradition of Qais Rashid, Afghana etc...
So whats the verdict, when is the first mention of the term ''Afghanistan'' in history.
Vis-A-Vis this thread(How much of pakistan was part of Afghanistan), thought I would add this map which shows that basically the modern day country of Pakistan was part of Afghanistan:
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
|
Posted By: arze
Date Posted: 26-Jan-2009 at 22:01
| ^ Afghanistan is not Hindustan, neither is western part of pakistan. stop making bs up. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 06:35
|
There needs no description, but an open eye for vision.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Aryan de Pakhtra
Date 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.
|
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date 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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. |
Posted By: arze
Date 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 |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date 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)
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date 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.
------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
|
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date 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?
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. |
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. Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 05:00
| All of n.w.f.p.....were most of the pashtuns live who still call themselves afghan. |
Posted By: arze
Date 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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
|
Posted By: hmmm
Date Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 07:04
That sounds strange. Is that claim really true or are you just making this up? |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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- /wiki/Sarbani - Sarbani /wiki/Tareen - Tareen /wiki/Yusafzai - Yusafzai /wiki/Tarkalani - Tarkalani /wiki/Mohmand - Mohmand /wiki/Mohammadzai - Mohammadzai 2- /wiki/Qais_Abdur_Rashid - Batani /w/index.php?title=Seyani&action=edit&redlink=1 - Seyani /w/index.php?title=Dotaani&action=edit&redlink=1 - Dotaani /wiki/Niazi - Niazi /wiki/Ghilzai - Ghilzai /wiki/Lodhi - Lodhi /wiki/Suri - Suri /wiki/Marwat - Marwat /wiki/Lohani - Lohani /w/index.php?title=Nuhrani&action=edit&redlink=1 - Nuhrani 3- /wiki/Ghourghushti - Ghourghushti /wiki/Kakar - Kakar /wiki/Mando - Mando /wiki/Jadoon - Jadoon /wiki/Safi - Safi /wiki/Naghar - Naghar /w/index.php?title=Panai&action=edit&redlink=1 - Panai /w/index.php?title=Deavi&action=edit&redlink=1 - Deavi /wiki/Ans - Ans /wiki/Tarik - Tarik /wiki/Parman - Parman /wiki/Abdul_Rahman - Abdul Rahman /w/index.php?title=Selaha&action=edit&redlink=1 - Selaha /w/index.php?title=Damsan&action=edit&redlink=1 - Damsan 4- /wiki/Karlan - Karlani or /wiki/Karlan - Karlanri /wiki/Mahsud - Mahsud /wiki/Waziri - Waziri /wiki/Khattak - Khattak /wiki/Afridi - Afridi /wiki/Orakzai - Orakzai /wiki/Dawar - Dawar /wiki/Bangash - Bangash |
Posted By: hmmm
Date Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 01:53
Thanks for the information. Â I did not realize that these many Pashtuns are refugees. Â How many Pashtun refugees are in Iran? Â Seems like almost 10% of the total Pashtuns are refugees.
|
Posted By: Zomaan Shilogh Dyak
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 11:35
|
An Afghan poster mentioned that the Nuristani (formerly Kafiristanis, or Kafirs of the Hindukush) are an Iranian group. In actuality they are niether Iranic nor Indic, but a separate group unto themselves. Previously they categorized as an archaic Indic group (Dardic).Another interesting point is that the Durand Agreement clearly states that Arnawai(Arandu) and Bashgal(Eastern Nuristan) are regions outside of Afghan influence, but in 1895 the Afghans forcibly captured Bashgal and converted the people to Islam. Bashgal had previously been tributary to Chitral, and the Afghans took advantage of a war of succession in Chitral took launch a campaign in Bashgal. ------------- Chaaghli Ay Chaagh Mo Korey, Yarkhun O Darband Aa Asum Surkhum Sthor Ma Mulo, Pong Lakhee Alghaan Aa Asum, Gaah-e-Badakhshan Aa Asum |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2009 at 20:56
yes, that is true. Several of these valleys paid tribute to the mehter(Beg) of Chitral and where cut off from their natural and historical routes to Northern Pakistan(Chitral) when they were forcibly conquered and converted to Islam by the ''Iron Amir'' of Afghanistan.
Also, I agree, the region of Northern Pakistan was also called Dardistan a long time ago, they are an indigenous group formerly known as Dard. They are an ancient people unto themselves and should not be confused with the more populous Iranic or Indic groups.
Interestingly, according to the Durand line agreements, those regions should still be considered associated with Chitral and subsequently Pakistani administrative control. The Pakistani government should put a case forward in this regard so that those people in Nuristan forcibly captured by the Afghans can be liberated and a historical unjust be corrected. In the case of the Kalash, the establishment of the Durand Line in effect, protected them from the Pograms of the Afghan Iron Amir otherwise they would be an extinct group today
 . Even when you travel to Chitral (Chitral City), you will notice that there is still considerable inter-change and many settlements of Nuristani from Afghanistan within this region of northern Pakistan and they are often treated as local people(s), so the social bonds still appear to be intact.
Many of them have integrated on a much better scale vs Afghans of other nationalities (i.e. Turkmen,Tajiks etc..) within Pakistani society.P.S. have you gone to Chitral recently?, last time I went was a good couple years ago, how is the Lowari pass progressing??
|
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2009 at 23:59
|
This all depends how you want to start Afghan history. Most modern day states did not have their modern names.
The state of Afghanistan was formed in 1747.
The claim of Afghan race is a bit misleading. Afghans are more of a nationality than a race. The Afghan people are mainly of Mongoloid and Caucasianoid stock- 2 completely different backgrounds.
here is from the CIA world factbook:
------------- http://pakhub.info"> 
|
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 00:18
|
A couple of other misconceptions I wanna clear up. Pakhtuns=Iranic people (a linguistic defination not racial one) Nuristanis=Drardic Uzbeks=Turkic Hazaaras=Iranic (again linguistic terms since Hazaraaz are Mongoloid) In short there is no "Afghan race" anymore than a Soviet race. Afghans consist of many races including those of caucasianoid and mongoloid stock.
------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 10-Apr-2009 at 08:36
The short answer is No. The British would not invade Afghanistan again. If you are going to talk about the Great Game, you can't help but mention Russia. When Czarist Russia was shamefully defeated by the Japanese in the turn of the 20th century, that led to a complete change in the balance of power. Russians grew vehemently opposed to the Czar and hence aspirations to take over India. The British's reason to invade and occupy Afghanistan was to stop any efforts by Czarist Russia to influence the country.
When the British invaded Afghanistan on a false pretense, they learned the hard lesson that the country was difficult to occupy, and even harder to control. Afghanistan was a costly mistake to the British. This lesson was painfully learned by all would-be occupiers. If you read Peter Hopkirk's "The Great Game" you will see that the Imperial Britain went from hawkish leadership to conservative leadership quite a few times during the Great Game. Depending on what kind of leadership was in charge, their policy to subdue the Afghan regions changed along with it. British interests to the region was simple, to curb Russian expansion.
At the time, the Russians were intent on destabilizing Afghanistan and to make new inroads (and railroads) towards Herat and Northeastern Afghanistan where the border was still being mapped. They tried taking Herat by aiding the Iranians in their sieges of Herat, but they failed. Emir Abdur Rahman Khan was the sole Afghan that stopped the British from starting another costly campaign into Afghanistan. His hatred for Russia was more than his hatred for the British. Citing the failures of his cousins in his memoirs, he was willing to negotiate and cede lands in exchange for power, money, and weapons from the British army. He was also willing to disperse any rebellions in his territory while vehemently opposing Russian influence. All he asked was that the British aid him when he needed it against the Russians and the British came to his aid when the Russians attacked during the Panjdeh incident. After that was resolved, the British without the Afghan ruler being present, set in stone the borders that would make Afghanistan today. Abdur Rahman Khan speaks about this in his memoirs and regretted that portions of NWFP had to be ceded to British control, but he was right in that the British would never be able to contain or control the border so in turn, he really didn't lose anything. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 06:23
|
the Pakistani government 'officially' honors Turk-afghan raiders such as ghazni and ghori and highlights that Pakistani society is amalgation of these forces. considering this thought being etched into the public conciosness, i would venture to say quite a bit. |
Posted By: Zomaan Shilogh Dyak
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2009 at 22:31
|
Marco, I was in Chitral until November.
It is indeed as shame that our Mehtar's gave up their claims to Nuristan and the Kunar Valley down to Asmar. The Bashgalis and Kunar tribesmen even supported the Mehtar against the Afghan's in 1919. The Chitral Bodyguard even recaputured the fortress at Birkot, which is where the Bashgal river meets the Chitral river.
Even today the people of Nuristan still have close links to Chitral. ------------- Chaaghli Ay Chaagh Mo Korey, Yarkhun O Darband Aa Asum Surkhum Sthor Ma Mulo, Pong Lakhee Alghaan Aa Asum, Gaah-e-Badakhshan Aa Asum |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 00:20
|
Yup theres more pashtuns in pakistan. But In pakistan pashtuns are not a majority. In afghanistan however they are. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 00:22
|
The people of nuristan have close ties with the pashtuns. Their language is also similar ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 00:26
|
Ghazni is a province and the people that live there come from different ethnic groups. Pashtuns and Tajiks are the most in that province and the Uzbeks come after. How does that make them Turk-Afghan? Ghazni is not an ethnic group. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 00:30
|
Uzbeks are not turks. Turks in Afghanistan come from the same group as the original Turks. They speak Turkish too. Uzbeks on the other hand are Aryan mixed with some mongol blood because of an invasion. And they speak uzbeki a persian language. And Im not mistaking them for Hazaras. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 00:31
|
By Mongoloid stock no they are not , the majority of them are of Aryan and Persian stock also Caucasian. and the mongols on the other hand are only the Hazaras a small minority (0.02%) in Afghanistan. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 00:34
|
But by Afghan race. The mojority of them come from the same race (tajiks, pashtuns, uzbeks, hazaras) Yes even the hazaras. They are aryans mixed with mongols and hence they have those features. But the only difference is they speak Different Languages. But speaking different language doesnt make your DNA different. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 00:46
|
marcopolo: Where did nooristan come from ? Nooristanis live in Nooristan a province of their own in Afghanistan and they choose to be in Afghanistan. The nooristanis are a small group and so they are endangered and so is their language. It wasn't because of the afghan government if you read Nooristani History. They are the remainders of Alexander the Great. And they are not DARDIC or anything. THey are Greek. They speak Nooristani and the live in a mountanous region. And no one bothers them except for the taliban. THe taliban didn't kill them they converted them to islam. But that doesn't mean their EXTINCT. ?!?! How could they be Extinct? The Durrand line did nothing to protect them. Just divide them from their families (The Kalashis ) Before the nooristanis became muslim they were called the Kalashis but Noor means Light. So they acheived light by becoming muslim or something. I don't know but you're mixing groups up. Nooristanis/kalashis are not dardic they are anceint greeks and they are left in Afghanistan/NWFP when Alexander the great left. They are Close to Nangarhar province in Afghanistan. The pashtuns and them are close friends. I don't know where you found this information.   My grandma is nooristani she would've yelled if she'd heard this. They hate being mixed up with another ethnic group. They are their own group Kalashi or as afghans call them nooristani. And they are devoted muslims now and wouldn't want to go back to their old costumes. ------------- |
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 04:07
The Nuristanis speak a Dardic language i believe, the same category as Kalashi and Kashmiri.
Indo-Iranic family is divided into 3 subfamilies. Indo-Aryan, Iranic and Dardic, though some linguists believe Dardic is actually part of Indo-Aryan. ------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 04:11
|
PS-Norristanis ans Kalashis do not claim to be Alexander's descedents until the British introduced the idea. I spoke to a Nuristani and he told me the exact.
Also recent DNA tests show just the same.But anyways Im not in for an arguement on this mythical ancient Greek 'connection' to the Dards.
DNA proof along with linguistic and scholarly evidence shows these are not Greeks. ------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: Zomaan Shilogh Dyak
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 19:25
|
The Nuristanis never chose to be part of Afghanistan. Amir Abdur-Rahman conquered them and forced them to convert.
The Kafirs (Nuristanis) used to dislike the Pashtuns (and most other Afghans) to a great extant. A boy was not considered a man until he went down to Kunar anor Nangarhar and returned with the head of a Pashtun.
They got along much better with the Chitralis and the Kafirs of the Bashgal Valley even paid tribute to Chitral.
The Kalash are not related closely to the Nuristanis, even their religion used to be different and they speak different languages. The Nuristanis used to consider the Kalash to be a weak race and servile race, they would demand anything in a Kalash village and Kalash would have to give it to them.
And yes, the Greek theoory has been largely disproven. ------------- Chaaghli Ay Chaagh Mo Korey, Yarkhun O Darband Aa Asum Surkhum Sthor Ma Mulo, Pong Lakhee Alghaan Aa Asum, Gaah-e-Badakhshan Aa Asum |
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2009 at 10:00
Not at all. Uzbek is not an iranic language if thats what your talking about. Uzbek is not even related to persian. its a Turkic language, a subgroup of the Altaic language family.
And only a handful of Uzbeks are caucasianoid because of mixing. Overall Uzbeks are Mongoloid. ------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 19:52
|
Here are some facts about Durrand... its a imaginary line⌠nothing else and nothing more. Durand treaty, the whole story. The line devised by the British was worked by the British Colonial Officer Durand and thus became known as the Durand Line. The document was to be ratified by the legislative body in Indeed, Durand treaty was nullified from inception, since British presented Durand document in English and the person of Abdul Rahman Khan did not understand English language, therefore this leads the suspicious nature of forgery and or false documentation. The Dari or Pashto translation of this document or agreement has never been signed by Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, suggesting that he nullified this agreement. In Addition, after the âGandomakâ treaty, Furthermore, if the treaty was a solid, unchangeable, unbreakable, and legally binding document that determined
|
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 20:05
|
I think by Persian you mean Iranic people... as for as i know NO Kurd, Pashton, Baloch and Pamari likes to be called Persian...except Tajiks whom share Dari/Tajiki/Farsi language with Farsi ethnic of Iran. Moreover there is this tendancy that any person from Iran, here in west claim to be Persian...just beacuse they speak Dari/Tajiki/Farsi language as first language...this is true for most of Tahrani people....for example Andy is a Christian Armanian Iranian....but i heard him on this US tv where he call himself Persian. The same is true with few iranian Kurds whom have become Persianized...while the Kurds of Iraq, and Turkey are proud of their kurdish language and identity. In short all the Iranic people... Pashton, Tajik, Kurd, Baloch, Pamari and Persian are from samce raciall and cultural background....but its really ignorant to call these Iranic people---Persian.
|
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 20:13
|
Well the reason for that is....after British left...they bestow Pakistani punjabis the power... in return for pakistani punjabis faithful serventite to British...against Iraq, Afghanistan, World war I and world...so why would Pakistani Punjabi ever want to become slave of Hindus? Below is list history of Pakistan âs security institutions.
ISI:
ISI was the brainchild of Australian-born British Army officer, Major General R. Cawthome, then Deputy Chief of Staff in the Pakistan Army.
Pakistan Militray:
Remnant of British India army, made up of Indian-Muslims whom have faithfully served British for 200 years... Including but not limited against Iraq , Afghanistan , World War 1 and 2. Army:
First two Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army where General Sir Frank Messervy (August 15, 1947 - February 10, 1948) General Sir Douglas David Gracey ( February 11, 1948 - January 16, 1951 . Air force.
Air force Chiefs |
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 20:20
Well said... what is interesting is our own muslim brothers..India muslim(pakistani) whom we afghans...historically were their protector.... have back stabe us afghans by becoming seccessor of British Raj against us.
|
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 20:28
On contrare, it was after first anglo-afghan war that British thinking changed...1st Anglo-afghan war... when the Britis first conqured Kabul....they brought their family, and were busy playing cricket(just like in India)...and then about around 16,000 Brits forces were killed and the Brtis were defeated from kabul.
|
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 20:40
one word BS!!!
Afghan is synonymous to Pashton....afghanistan---land of Afghan--Pashton!!!
|
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 21:01
Yea but at that time there was NO Pakistan.
In fact after creation of pakistan as a home for India's muslim, the Chitral regions--called Northen area....is still controlled by central gov...just like FATA.
You are right...but in term of culture and race...the Dardic people are more closer to Iranic people then Indic people.
This is plain stupid... first of all Durrand line is never meant to be international boundary in the first place to separate the two countries.(google durrand treaty) It purpose was âfixing of the limits of their [Amirâs and British Indiaâs] respective spheres of influenceâ, the object being the extension of British authority and not that of the Indian frontier at that time.
Second... Pakistan IS not a successor state to Britain but an entirely new state carved out of British India. Whatever, treaty rights existed were therefore extinguished. Unless Pakistani think they were fathered/mothered by Angreez that they can claim their treaty.
Third, most important of all Afghanistan had repudiated all treaties which denied to it the right to exert this influence among all the Pashtuns; [The Afghan government convened a Loya Jirga or Grand Assembly (which included the National Assembly) in Kabul on July 26, 1949 and formally and specifically abrogated the Durand Agreement of 1893, the Anglo-Afghan Pact of 1905, the Treaty of Rawalpindi 1919, the Anglo Afghan Treaty of 1921 and any other treaties which referred to the status of the Pashtuns.
Fouth, After the treaty of Gandamak (1879) Afghanistan was no more a sovereign state...more over durrand Treaty of 1893 was signed under duress and, therefore the line drawn pursuant to that treaty was invalid!!!
Fifth, The five articles of the Rawalpindi Peace Treaty (not a friendship treaty) [August 8, 1919] called for the withdrawal of British troops and the cessation of British subsidies and stopping the flow of Afghan war materials through India. The treaty made no mention of Afghan sovereignty or independence. On the insistence of the Afghan delegation a rider (letter) to the effect that it had been implied was attached to the treaty by Mr. Hamilton Grant (The British Plenipotentiary). The letter ran as follows:
"...the said treaty and this letter leave Afghanistan officially free and independent in its internal and external affairs. Moreover, this war has cancelled all previous Treaties".
The reason for integration of Chitral to pakistan is first their Shia religion(specially of unleashing of Wahabi/Talibans by pakistan state with the money of Arab Sheikhs)...on other hand the Turkman, Tajik and other Suni Afghan/Turkic people does not feel any connection to pakistan...beacuse Pakistan was created for Muslims primarily of Indian cultural background based on problems and conflicts which pertained strictly with India...with whom the Central asian people---Tajik, Turkman, Pashton, Baloch and... feel very little in common with.
|
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 21:24
Well...when we talk about Race...we mean majoirty of people...just Turks in Turkey are from Turkish race, and Pakistan from Indic race....85% of population of country--Punjabi, Sindi, Saraki, Hindko. 85% of population of Afghanistan are from Afghanian race. As anthropologist Carleton S. Coon in his book...The Races of Europe classifies Afghanian race as as Irano-Afghan race...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranid_race - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranid_race
Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Aimak 4%, Baloch 2%, and others like Pamiri, Yaqobi 4% Are major Iranic peopleâŚ.Hazara 9% on other hand are Mongolied but Hazara speak major Iranic language---Dari. Other then Turkic people---Turkmen 3% and Uzbak 9% all the people of Afghanistan are either racially Afghanian or are culturally. |
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2009 at 21:33
On contrare Nooristani are the most partoric and hardcore afghan nationalist...the Nooristani even claim they are the true---Pashtons and because of arabs the moved to moutians of nooristan until Amir Abdul Rahman converted them to Islam in 19 century. Jamel Noristani was king Amanullah khan general who with Nadir Khan conqured Wana Wazirstistan from British during 3rd anglo-afghan war.... all his troops were Nooristanis...in fact unlike the Punjabi muslim and the Indianized ethnic Afghan---Pathan whom faithfully served British against not only muslim of Afghanistan but Iraq, and even fight for Saheeb master in Baiitul Moqadaas...there were NO Nooristani troops under command of Angreez....there were few Chitralis but most of them did not join the fight against afghanistan during 3 Anglo-Afghan war.... almost all the British troops that fight against afghansitan were from Bangal, and Panjab ragements.
|
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2009 at 10:07
|
Since I've had enough of Afghans misusing this forum to spread their propaganda I will post the truth about this issue, which has been manupulated by Pashtun Afghans (the other ethnic gorups are oppossed to Afghan Pashtuns so are the Pakistani Pashtuns whom by the way who dont give two hoots about Afghanistan)
http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/durand.html - http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/durand.html
------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2009 at 10:19
The people of Turkey are not a race. Even the Turkic-speaking majority in Turkey do not consitute a race, but a language grouping. if you look at haplogroup maps of Turkey the main make ups of the population are J1 & J2 (Arab & medditarenian) a pinch of Q (Mongoloid/Turanoid) as well as R1A (east European) and R1B (west European, gained most likely from Turks mixing with Balkan peoples during the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans thats why you can find blond haired people in Turkey).
So in short you cannot claim people to be "one race" just because of a common language.
You just pointed out Hazaras are not Iranic racially, so why are you terming people of Turkey as one race because of language? It doesnt work that way.
your bogus "Irano-Afghan" race does not exist, quoting wikipedia is no good no one trusts that site.
And what exactly makes you think Uzbeks & Turkmens belong to the "Afghanian race" There is no such thing.
There is also no Indic race. It's a language group.
Race is about genetic linage not language otherwise Hazaras and Persians are "one Iranic race" ------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2009 at 08:46
This reminds me of fallowing poem i read on one of the public restrooms. Here I sat with broken heart Trying to mailto:sh@T - but only could fart The problem with you Punjabi muslims are that you guys have too much hatred, maybe its b/c of lack of idnetity..you hate Hindus although you share culture, language, race and history with them... you had afghans and then you name your rockets, road and bombs after our Heros and kings. I really feel sorry for you people. Your partation of Indiaâtwo nation theory was only based on relgionâŚsince punjabi, sindi and other indic people were divided into hindu and muslimâŚbut then why would Pashtons and Baloch be divided from each other? If Pakustan is a muslim country then why she is fallowing the same old british raj policy against muslim Pashtons and Afghanistan?
If Taliban are so good... then lets have the Taliban rule in pakistan...lets ban Mujrah dancing, and Hera Mandi in lahour....and close all the girls school in punjab....make no mistake... Monafeqeens like pakistani elites will be punished in this world and next world.. allah sobah talah promises us muslims this....and just in case it did not happen... we afghans will be there to take our Badel....never forget the old saying...afghans will take their revange even after 100 years!! Pakistan will pay for sheding blood of afghans under their wet dream of stratigic depth(pardon the accent)...mark my words!!! Now as for as Durrand line concern⌠can you plz tell if Kafir Parangees are pakistanis father that pakistan could inhertance their treaty against muslim afghanistan? Now as for as actual lineâŚ.well for your information every sane person in world knows the line does not exist⌠other then ta bandi ma bandi makan fathanâŚwhoâs fahter and forefathers faithfuly served BritishâŚex Gen Babur, Gen Akhtar Rahman, Gen Ayub khan andâŚ. No real pashtons will ever consider himsleve indian muslim(pakistani)! Here is a greeat poem by Peshwari poet malang jan Aslee Pashton afghanistan koshee Ka pashon nawee pakistan koshee Rough translation---real pashton perfers afghanistan, if he is not a pashton he perfers pakistan. |
Posted By: Afghan
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2009 at 09:07
Here are few sources where you can educate yourself. The Races of Europe by anthropologist Carleton S.
Deniker, J., The Races of Man, pp. 280-284
Irano-Afghan: The long-faced, high-headed, usually of tall stature, which forms the principal element in the population of Iran, Afghanistan, and some few Turkoman country, and which is also present in Palestine, parts of Arabia, India, and North Africa. It is probably related to the old Corded type of the Neolithic and Bronze Age.â
H. Irano-Afghanska rasa ( predominanat u H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...ofHumanity.htm - http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...ofHumanity.htm Here are some other sourcesâŚ
  ^^ Hindu race---altered as Indic race for there are non-hindu Indic people.
|
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2009 at 10:57
|
You think by posting some bogus charts and unreliable "sources" here you'll really achieve something? How about posting some haplogroup maps instead?
Scientists use haplogroup maps and letters to determine races, not fancy names like "Irano-Afghan" no such thing exists.
Haplogorups are represented by letters followed by subgroups which are represented by numbers.
ie. haplogroup R can be broken into R1a (east european) R1b (west european) R2 (mostly in india i think) and further on. Their mutations are also represented by letters and numbers.
But instead you post a picture of what appears to be a caucasianoid Afghan claiming they are all like that, when it's a known fact about 20-25 percent of Afghans are mongoloid by race, unrelated to the caucasian population.
Below are pictures of a Pashtun and Uzbek Afghan do they really appear to be of the "same race" to you???
Pashtun Afghan:
http://img255.imageshack.us/i/pashtunafghan.jpg/">
 Uzbek Afghan:
http://img22.imageshack.us/i/uzbekafghan.jpg/">
 Instead you are misusing this thread and posted misinformation regarding the durand line and races and have resorted to personal attacks, so dont think there can be any civil discussion. ------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2009 at 10:41
|
It always surprises me at the level of outright racism and jingoism that this topic promotes. Someone needs to close this topic before these two nationalists make a joke out of both of their respective countries and peoples. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2009 at 15:39
|
First let me say that there is only one race, the Human Race. The concept of separate racial groups is a social construct.
I've had 2 complaints about this thread. Having looked through it, I can't find anything overly objectionable, yet. I say yet because I do see what others have. This thread is starting to heat up. I don't want to close this thread as has been the normal procedure.
We are all educated intelligent adults here, there is much to debate. In a civilized and productive manner.
For instance, Carleton Coon was a really interesting person. I had the honor of meeting him on several occasions when I was a young teen. However, his ideas on "race" were from a different era.
His last 2 books were not well received, in fact they were torn apart by his contemporaries. Labeling it outright racist in nature.
Point, counterpoint, and it can be heated, as long as it stays civil.
|
Posted By: Zomaan Shilogh Dyak
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2009 at 12:51
|
As a Chitrali I bear no ill will towards Afghans. They are my brothers and in most ways we are closer to them than to the Pakistanis of the lowlands.
...But what I have stated about the Kafirs is true. They did not get along with the Afghan State at all, it was only after 1895 and their conversion that they bceame Afghan Nationalists. Kindly refer to the boook "Kafirs of The Hindukush."
Another thing, Chitralis have never considered themselves to be Afghans, despite having political associations with Afghanistan at various times in our history. Ultimately our ruler chose closer ties with Kashmir and eventually the British.
In 1919 (3rd Afghan War) The Chitralis were the only people along the Durand Line who sided with the British. We still have songs about "Alghaani o Khol an Kabul otain anzese" "We will send the Pashtuns bones back to Kabul" from that period.
The Kunar Valley (which down to Asmar belonged to Chitral before 1895) almost fell again in 1919, Shahzaman Khan's advance was stopped at Arandu and Chitral retook Barikot and advanced on Narai.
Once more I do not intend to enflame anyones passions by making these remarks, I am only telling you teh correct history of my region.
Afghans and Pakistanis are equally close to my heart. ------------- Chaaghli Ay Chaagh Mo Korey, Yarkhun O Darband Aa Asum Surkhum Sthor Ma Mulo, Pong Lakhee Alghaan Aa Asum, Gaah-e-Badakhshan Aa Asum |
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2009 at 17:01
| ^ ^ what is the language of chitral? also are you closer to afghans or kashmiries? |
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2009 at 20:49
I think you mean eastern Afghans and in most specificly Nuristanis would be closest. Uzbek Afghans, Hazara Afghans, and Turkmen Afghans have nothing in common with you.
As for Pashtun Afghans they are also related to you as are Pakistani Pashtuns & Balochis who are from the lowlands by the way.
------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2009 at 20:53
I believe the people of Chitral speak an Individual Indo-Iranic language which does not belong to any subgrouping inside the Indo-Iranic family.
The Kashmiri language onthe other hand belongs to the Dardic grouping. ------------- http://pakhub.info">
|
Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2009 at 21:05
|
^ i was very surprised to know that acutally northern pakistans (dards) share very much in comman with rest of Pakistanis (punjabies,sindhis) genetically they are very similar, ofcourse culturaly they might be more iranic, but even pashtuns have more indic genetics they they have persian genetics, infact persian (iranians) have huge amounts of J1 Haplogroup which is arab and J1 is totally missing in Pashtuns, Pakistanis and North Indians. I know every one has different looks and physical features but genetically all of the north indian subcontinent is not very different from each other inluding pashtuns.
|
Posted By: PakistaniShield
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2009 at 06:50
Well culturally speaking, I dont think such a thing as Iranic really exists. Even "indic" there's no such race. The language grouping is most commonly reffered to as Indo-Aryan. I think you mean geography yes Dardic people live in mountainious like the Iranic populations of Pakistan and less dravidian/indian influence in their languages.
my personal thoery was that the Indo-Aryan & Dardic population of Pakistan are descedents of a first wave of Indo-Iranic invaders who settled in Pakistan. This gave them lots of time to mix with the native population and close contact with the dravidians is evident in the Sindhi & Punjabi languages.
Pashtuns & Baloch are descedents of a second wave of invaders who came. Much to my surprise these same theories are shared by historians.
Dardic people in my theory descend from the first wave of Indo-Iranic, like Sindhis & Punjabis as also evident in their language (some linguists consider Dardic & Indo-Aryan to be of the same family) but due to their remote mountainous location they mixed less and came in much less contact with the dravidians and other races.
------------- http://pakhub.info">
|