Print Page | Close Window

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 Description: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
Moderators: Omar al Hashim, Sparten, Temujin
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=23686
Printed Date: 22-Feb-2018 at 08:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: How much of pakistan was part of Afghanistan?
Posted By: saba
Subject: How much of pakistan was part of Afghanistan?
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 01:38
WELCOME, OUR CURRENTLY ACTIVE FORUM HAS MOVED OVER TO:

http://allempires.net/forum/forums.html

___________________________



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
Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:

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. 
 

This is ridiculous! People's never get defined by the place of their birth...but by their race, culture and blood. More over Pakistan is not continuity of Afghan kingdom...but a new entity upholding religion as base for their identity! In political term Pakistan is successor of British raj.

 



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!


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 15:31
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

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!
 
 

Only Peshawar was under rule of Sikh while the urban Pashton populated area were directly under Afghan. Durand treaty explains this…for if Sikh had ruled these area then British would have not need for a treaty…  

 

 

Articles  of Durand treaty

Link

 

http://www.khyber.org/pashtohistory/treaties/durandagreement.shtml - http://www.khyber.org/pashtohistory/treaties/durandagreement.shtml

 

 

  1. The British Government thus agrees to His Highness the Amir retaining Asmar and the valley above it, as far as Chanak. His Highness agrees, on the other hand, that he will at no time exercise interference in Swat, Bajaur, or Chitral, including the Arnawai or Bashgal valley. The British Government also agrees to leave to His Highness the Birmal tract as shown in the detailed map already given to his Highness, who relinquishes his claim to the rest of the Waziri country and Dawar. His Highness also relinquishes his claim to Chageh.
  2. The frontier line will hereafter be laid down in detail and demarcated, wherever this may be practicable and desirable, by joint British and Afghan commissioners, whose object will be to arrive by mutual understanding at a boundary which shall adhere with the greatest possible exactness to the line shown in the map attached to this agreement, having due regard to the existing local rights of villages adjoining the frontier.
     
  3. With reference to the question of Chaman, the Amir withdraws his objection to the new British cantonment and concedes to the British Governmeni the rights purchased by him in the Sirkai Tilerai water. At this part of the frontier the line will be drawn as follows:

    From the crest of the Khwaja Amran range near the Psha Kotal, which remains in British territory, the line will run in such a direction as to leave Murgha Chaman and the Sharobo spring to Afghanistan, and to pass half-way between the New Chaman Fort and the Afghan outpost known locally as Lashkar Dand. The line will then pass half-way between the railway station and the hill known as the Mian Baldak, and, turning south-wards, will rejoin the Khwaja Amran range, leaving the Gwasha Post in British territory, and the road to Shorawak to the west and south of Gwasha in Afghanistan. The British Government will not exercise any interference within half a mile of the road

 

 

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: Sparten
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.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 17:56
Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:

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. 
 

This is ridiculous! People's never get defined by the place of their birth...but by their race, culture and blood. More over Pakistan is not continuity of Afghan kingdom...but a new entity upholding religion as base for their identity! In political term Pakistan is successor of British raj.

 



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: Sparten
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

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


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
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

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.
 

 

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 Kabul rulers allocated resources to parties that were opposing Ghafar Khan party in Sarhad which they did fallow and continue to fallow to this day.



Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 21:32
Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:

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. 
 

This is ridiculous! People's never get defined by the place of their birth...but by their race, culture and blood. More over Pakistan is not continuity of Afghan kingdom...but a new entity upholding religion as base for their identity! In political term Pakistan is successor of British raj.

 

 
Quote
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?
 

 

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 Europe” 

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.

http://www.allempires.net/smileys/smiley4.gif">

 

 

 

Quote


 
 

If someone outside of South Asia were to look at this picture they would mistakenly identify him as a Sikh.

 

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.


Quote
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?

Pashtun--Indic? bawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

The same reason that Afghanistan survived all this blood and cry...intact and never in her history there was a secessionist movement should tell you about solidness of afghan identity. Afghanistan is culturally a homogenous country despite its diverse ethnic groups. In anthropology, Afghans are regarded as an Iranian people. (Note: This has nothing to do with Citizens of Iran, the neighboring country, we are talking about anthropology). The majority speak some branch of an Iranian language. Tajiks, Pashtuns, Baloch and Nuristanis are the major Iranian groups. Hazaras are non-Iranian but speak dari, an Iranian language. Uzbeks are turks, but their language and culture have been deeply influenced by the Iranian culture and language. Even Uzbek grammar has been affected by Iranian language grammar rules.

 
 
Quote

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.

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
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

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
 
 

This is false.. I’m not sure about Ahmad Durrani birth place. but i know that his father was not in governor of multan.His father was Mohammad Zaman Khan Abdali and his mother Zarghoona Alakozai. His grandfathers were Doulath Khan and Sarmasth Khan from the Atdali tribe, one of the two ruling tribes of Kandahar.

 
 


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 Multan? Wikipedia also claim that…but from what I remember(I’m just going by memory) the book Tarikh e Ahmad Shah E which is basically biography of Durrnai state his birth place in Herat. Specially when Ghalzia after revolting against Saffavid Turks had exiled a lot of Durranis to Herat. I will try to find Tarikh e Ahmad Shahi and recheck this.

 



Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 21:57
Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

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.
 

 

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 Kabul rulers allocated resources to parties that were opposing Ghafar Khan party in Sarhad which they did fallow and continue to fallow to this day.

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.


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 22:04
Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

 

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 Europe”



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?


Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

 

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.



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?




Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

 

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


LOL you have no idea about Sikh history nor do you know which parts of Asia all of them came from, do you?


Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

 

The same reason that Afghanistan survived all this blood and cry...intact and never in her history there was a secessionist movement should tell you about solidness of afghan identity. Afghanistan is culturally a homogenous country despite its diverse ethnic groups. In anthropology, Afghans are regarded as an Iranian people. (Note: This has nothing to do with Citizens of Iran, the neighboring country, we are talking about anthropology). The majority speak some branch of an Iranian language. Tajiks, Pashtuns, Baloch and Nuristanis are the major Iranian groups. Hazaras are non-Iranian but speak dari, an Iranian language. Uzbeks are turks, but their language and culture have been deeply influenced by the Iranian culture and language. Even Uzbek grammar has been affected by Iranian language grammar rules.


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
Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

maqsad,

Can you tell me where you get the information that Ahmad  shah Durrani was born in Multan? Wikipedia also claim that…but from what I remember(I’m just going by memory) the book Tarikh e Ahmad Shah E which is basically biography of Durrnai state his birth place in Herat. Specially when Ghalzia after revolting against Saffavid Turks had exiled a lot of Durranis to Herat. I will try to find Tarikh e Ahmad Shahi and recheck this.

 



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? Big%20smile


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 22:10
Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

Now the claim that place of birth of people defines their ethnicity and origin is too ridicules to replay to. 



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
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

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.
 

 

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 Kabul rulers allocated resources to parties that were opposing Ghafar Khan party in Sarhad which they did fallow and continue to fallow to this day.

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.
 

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 Pakistan but we will not back stab our Muslim brother.” While the stupid zahir shah were busy with his illusion of “Muslim brothers” Pakistan took the opportunity and implemented the Kabul must be burn police of Amir Monafeqen Zai beHuq. You should read Musharaf book…he attest that soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a god’s gift to Pakistan. it change Pakistan luck both financially and geo-politically.

As for as export and important the only that comes from Pakistan is plastic toys and cheap Desi useless products… while almost all of Afghanistan’s 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
Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:



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?

what Genetic of Afghanistan? When was a genetic study was done in Afghanistan? Don't tell me you carry a genetic study of Afghanistan last name. A genetic study of Pashton of occupation pashtonistan was carried that shows no Mongolian genes.

 


 


Quote


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?

 

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.

 




Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

 

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.


Quote

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

 
What mangolian?  here compare the pashton DNA/Gene to that of Hazara and try to find that of Punjbians and see it for youself.
Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan http://download.ajhg.org/AJHG/pdf/PIIS0002929707625075.pdf - http://download.ajhg.org/AJHG/pdf/PIIS0002929707625075.pdf

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

 
 
 
Quote
 

LOL you have no idea about Sikh history nor do you know which parts of Asia all of them came from, do you?

 
they are sick so... i wish them health! Big%20smile


[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: Sparten
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.


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 12:12
Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

Originally posted by maqsad maqsad wrote:



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?

what Genetic of Afghanistan? When was a genetic study was done in Afghanistan? Don't tell me you carry a genetic study of Afghanistan last name. A genetic study of Pashton of occupation pashtonistan was carried that shows no Mongolian genes.



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? Shocked
 

Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:


Quote


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?

 

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.

 



Hahaha if that is so then why did you spell  one  zai like zai and the other zai like zia  two words after it? LOL

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? Wink

Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

  

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…



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! Clap

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! Shocked


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 25-Mar-2008 at 12:17
Originally posted by True Afghan True Afghan wrote:

You should read Musharaf book…he attest that soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a god’s gift to Pakistan. it change Pakistan luck both financially and geo-politically.

As for as export and important the only that comes from Pakistan is plastic toys and cheap Desi useless products… while almost all of Afghanistan’s 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.



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: Sparten
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,

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


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.
 
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

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.
 
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: Sparten
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.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


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
Originally posted by isami isami wrote:

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.
 
 
I must have missed this. Big%20smile I'm honored.   Does this make me an honorary Pakistani? 


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.


-------------
Copyright © 2004 Seko


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
Originally posted by Afghanan Afghanan wrote:

 In 1919, when the name "Afghanistan" became official, Pakistan was forming its own national awareness from Britain.

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
Originally posted by Afghanan Afghanan wrote:

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..
 
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 ( (د دريدو(اوسيدو) ځای، جای ايست(بودباش ، 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: Cheeta
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: Cheeta
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: Cheeta
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 06:35

There needs no description, but an open eye for vision.


Posted By: Cheeta
Date Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 06:36
Originally posted by arze arze wrote:

^ Afghanistan is not Hindustan, neither is western part of pakistan. stop making bs up.
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: Cheeta
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
Originally posted by arze arze wrote:

 afghanistan and western pakistan do not belong to hindustan. you sound like some indian nationalistic who claim weird things
 
Agreed.  Smile
 
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
Originally posted by MarcoPolo MarcoPolo wrote:

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.
 
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: Cheeta
Date Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 21:35
Originally posted by MarcoPolo MarcoPolo wrote:

 
Agreed.  Smile
 
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) 
 
It is according to the subject and purely history without a political theme. You have mentioned here about the border of the Punjab province (but not Sindh and Kashmir) that there is no disturbance because of the demarcation. In Sindh there are such elements that enjoy some authority just because of the tension on the border, if the tension decreases their position is feared to die out.  Then is Kashmir which has consumed a lot of lives that are lost in vain only for the mercy of God to bless possessing no worldly benifit as an outcome.
There are a few cities in this region that have some spiritual like attraction for their inhabitants while other people do not even feel that.
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
Originally posted by Afghanan Afghanan wrote:

 
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.
 
 
 
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: Sparten
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.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Cheeta
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2009 at 20:12

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.

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.



Posted By: pakhtun--gurl
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: Cheeta
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2009 at 22:27
Originally posted by pakhtun--gurl pakhtun--gurl wrote:

All of n.w.f.p.....were most of the pashtuns live who still call themselves afghan.
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
Originally posted by Cheeta Cheeta wrote:

.... there are major tribes of Afghans/Pushtuns in Pakistan rather than in the present Afghanistan. 


That sounds strange.  Is that claim really true or are you just making this up?


Posted By: Cheeta
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
Originally posted by Cheeta Cheeta wrote:

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


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.


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
Originally posted by Zomaan Shilogh Dyak Zomaan Shilogh Dyak wrote:

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.
 
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 Cry
 
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.  Smile  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: PakistaniShaheen
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:
 
Quote
Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747. The country served as a buffer between the British and Russian empires until it won independence from notional British control in 1919. A brief experiment in democracy ended in a 1973 coup and a 1978 Communist counter-coup. The Soviet Union invaded in 1979 to support the tottering Afghan Communist regime, touching off a long and destructive war. The USSR withdrew in 1989 under relentless pressure by internationally supported anti-Communist mujahedin rebels. A series of subsequent civil wars saw Kabul finally fall in 1996 to the Taliban, a hardline Pakistani-sponsored movement that emerged in 1994 to end the country's civil war and anarchy. Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, a US, Allied, and anti-Taliban Northern Alliance military action toppled the Taliban for sheltering Osama BIN LADIN. The UN-sponsored Bonn Conference in 2001 established a process for political reconstruction that included the adoption of a new constitution, a presidential election in 2004, and National Assembly elections in 2005. In December 2004, Hamid KARZAI became the first democratically elected president of Afghanistan and the National Assembly was inaugurated the following December. Despite gains toward building a stable central government, a resurgent Taliban and continuing provincial instability - particularly in the south and the east - remain serious challenges for the Afghan Government.


-------------
http://pakhub.info">


Posted By: PakistaniShaheen
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
Originally posted by MarcoPolo MarcoPolo wrote:

 
 
 
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?
 
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: Nataraja
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: 00historylover00
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.

-------------
*This user could not think of anything to write as a signature*


Posted By: 00historylover00
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 00:22
The people of nuristan have close ties with the pashtuns. Their language is also similar

-------------
*This user could not think of anything to write as a signature*


Posted By: 00historylover00
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. 

-------------
*This user could not think of anything to write as a signature*


Posted By: 00historylover00
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.


-------------
*This user could not think of anything to write as a signature*


Posted By: 00historylover00
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. 

-------------
*This user could not think of anything to write as a signature*


Posted By: 00historylover00
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. 

-------------
*This user could not think of anything to write as a signature*


Posted By: 00historylover00
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. Angry 

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. 


-------------
*This user could not think of anything to write as a signature*


Posted By: PakistaniShaheen
Date Posted: 15-May-2009 at 04:07
Originally posted by 00historylover00 00historylover00 wrote:

The people of nuristan have close ties with the pashtuns. Their language is also similar
 
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: PakistaniShaheen
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



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net