Why did he say that in 1933 then?
Pakistanis like him because of what he did to Marathas. But he never fought for Pakistan, he fought for Afghans.
Whatever is left of Afghanistan is a remnant of HIS empire which is why he is the founder of Afghanistan.
There was no afghanistan or pakistan back then for him to fight for... He fought for Afghans???OK then since Hazara Tajik and other small groups are not Afghans... he shouldn't be their leader . so how come he is founding father of today's nation state Afghanistan. He is only leader of the 40%..that brings us to misapropriation of khorasan and turkistan as "Afghanistan"...lol..
"Studies that associate the Abdālī-Durrānī with Afghanistan scarcely acknowledge the
fact that “Afghanistan” is rarely used as a geographic term in sources predating the
nineteenth century. This includes chronicles produced under the auspices of various
Timurid, Mughal, Safavid and post-Safavid rulers who exercised authority over the
territories comprising what is today Afghanistan in the pre-Durrānī era.
The same is true of documents produced at the court of Aḥmad Shāh, which are noteworthy for not containing any references to “Afghanistan” despite the fact that the latter was widely regarded as the
country’s “founding father.”19 On the other hand, geographic terms like Turkistan, Khurasan and Hindustan are regularly encountered in sources produced in the period under unvestogation.
Tarikh i Ahmed Shahi quoted in
The pearl of pearls.. Sajjad Nejatie
..I have already Rubbished the narrative that he wanted an Afghan state...... majority people in his empire were none Afghans. And his officers and soldiers were both Afghan and non afghan. He NEVER referred himself as afghan.. I think that should be clear enough.