Pashto words in Urdu

[Mian Babban]

You have done a great disservice by selectively quoting Tarikh-i-SherShahi (and have a s**t translation) written by Abbas Khan Sarwani (pathan) who was a a waqia-navis under Mughal emperor Akbar, detailing the rule of Sher Shah Suri. The book does not mention any of the tribe leaders of roh or their tribes but refers to them as a single entity because they were insignificant and not given much importance. They have rarely figured in the book. Pathans came to now UP and Punjab in large numbers with a huge chunk of their tribes and these were the people who played significant role in politics of medieval India. They were proud that they were pathan just as their descendants are now and your (residents of Roh) role in their history is close to non-exsistent. Most of the time when the word Afghan is used it is used in the context of afghans living in hind and bordering regions of sir-hind and whenever afghans from roh are mentioned they specifically say so. Though their names are not mentioned.

They dissociated themselves from that land and lived in Hind, Bengal and Sirhind and became natives of that land. You people of roh are only distantly connected to their history and then you claim that their descendants have to get your certificate to claim their glorious past and to claim the lineage of their ancestors. Funny how racist small minded bigots like you work.

You can satisfy your ego by calling me a racist but i am merely stating established facts. You are right, Afghans/Pashtuns in India did lose their ethnic identity but not within few generations but after becoming fully Indianized. After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others. They could not tell their tribe or other details. For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun. The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.

I never said he looked down on pathans don't put words in my mouth. Patahns of Hind are proud today as they were back then. When babur came to India loose fractious confederations were formed by Pathans and Rajputs of hind based on their commonalities to gain power. Pathans of roh don't figure much in his history or the history of medieval India. His military generals and fighting armies were mostly composed of Pathans of hind, not of roh who were treated more like hired mercenaries in wars in sind and sirhind and that is how he looked down upon them.

The Pashtuns of those days, in their graves, wont be proud of you and others linked with Altaf Hussain. Their Pashtun heart will be bleeding for Pashtuns of Afghanistan, Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and Karachi. And its not true, Babur army consisted of his own Mirzas and Pashtuns of Roh. He had allies in Ghoria Khels and Dilazaks but his Afghan wife's brother Mir Jamal also accompanied him with 1200 Yousafzais. There were also few thousands Kheshgi Pashtuns in his army who were given Kasur as reward for their settlement. And if you think that Babur had high opinions about Pashtuns settled in India, then you are wrong. In his Baburnama he calls them most Idiotic people out of all in India.

On the nature of these confederations which you call pushton-hood was not really as you describe it. It was a combination of politics and shared identity as pathans (mostly pathans of hind). The pathans only rallied under Sher shah suri once he was powerful enough not before that. You should stop misrepresenting medieval Indian politics.

Perhaps you have not read Baburnama. Babur was very eager to earn the friendship of Pashtuns nobles in India and showered favours on them, gave them khilats and confirmed them in their jagirs instead of giving it to his Mirzas. Yet Afghan nobles were rebelling again and again and were not caring about losing jagirs granted by Babur. Why?. Its because of their sense of being Pashtun. If they were not Pashtuns they would not have been so restless and troublesome and would have preferred Mughal service without any hesitation.

All mentions of Afghans here refer to pathans of hind. Residents of Roh had no part to play in it and neither they were mentioned. This was a political alliance between the pathans of hind not roh. There was not one pathan of roh of any significance. The 'country' mentioned above refers to lands in Hind not roh. That is what he was fighting for along with other patahans of hind

Its because affairs in India did not concern those in Roh unless they were specifically invited to interfere. The Afghan Sultans of India also refrained from interfering in affairs of Roh. Hind was like Karachi, Pashtuns from Roh were migrating there for job opportunities.

The alliance was very fractious and only consolidated after sher shah was powerful enough but never fully and they were as quick to switch allegiance to new power center. The afghan confederation was to maintain their jagirs and not based on anything like modern day pashtun nationalism.

You should read further, Sher Shah betrayed that Raja.

Where do you think these Afghanis dropped from. They were mostly from hind. Off course he had affinity to pathans as he was a pathan himself but not from roh but from hind. He did not say my first language is Afghan tongue but reckoned it as a friend. His language of use was persian. Another sign of differentiation between the two which only increased over time.

You are not paying attention to what you are copy pasting. If he was questioning his soldiers in Afghan tongue i.e Pashto then he was obviously a Pashto speaker. Read more, Abbas Sarwani says that Sher Shah greeted his grandfather in Afghan tongue.

Over time the pathans of hind were totally disassociated from the tribals of Roh and were part of the Ashrafi culture of hind. Even Rohillas who cam in the 18th century very quickly became a part of it. You have no claim over the histories of these people. Claim your own history of tribal warfare and poverty.

All the human beings in the world will disagree with you. Hafiz Rahmat Khan, one of the greatest figure of Rohillas, was a Pashto speaker and doer, convince me how he has any thing to do with you because you have loudly announced that you have nothing to do with any Pashto speaker.

You little tribals don't have a copyright on being pathan or any tribe. So get it out of you pathetic heads that you an tell people who is a pathan and who isn't. Not all Pathans are backward tribal people like you and they speak different languages (Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi) and have a far greater history and culture than yours

We are indeed not Pathans or Pathanis.....we are Pashtun or Afghans......What we say will always define Pashtun identity and what we do will shape Pashtun history. And its your Indian mentality which is looking down upon tribal people. All proper Pashtuns are tribal. "You backward tribal people", thats the language and tone of Indians, not Pashtuns. "A tribe" in Pashtun belt or immediate vicinity which speaks Farsi, Balochi or Punjabi but all of its interests, including political ones, are common with us, then they are Pashtuns. But any Alaf-Hussaini Urdu-speaker is not Pashtun.

 

[icebreaker2]

It should be clear to you from these passages of Tareekh-e-Khan Jahani wa Makhzan-e-Afghani that that bhalal lodi since his ancestors settling in sirhind was no longer a part of any tribal structure of lodi's not in sirhind and did not fight in any tribal warfare for them. The one's in Sirhind were no longer following tribal customs and their social structure was that of indus-gangetic plains. i.e Zamindari and kingship.

Read carefully how people distinguished between them and pathans from roh. He was able to fool the sultane by presenting them as savages because he was unaware of them. They led a different lifestyle and were not part of any power structure in India. Only Pathans who came to the plains in service of different sultans ever ruled over India because they part of the power structure of the sultans not because they were part of some tribe.

 

[Mian Babban]

It should be clear to you from these passages of Tareekh-e-Khan Jahani wa Makhzan-e-Afghani that that bhalal lodi since his ancestors settling in sirhind was no longer a part of any tribal structure of lodi's not in sirhind and did not fight in any tribal warfare for them. .

His father was killed in a tribal war with Niazis

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

View attachment 401803

View attachment 401804


View attachment 401805

It should be clear to you from these passages of Tareekh-e-Khan Jahani wa Makhzan-e-Afghani that that bhalal lodi since his ancestors settling in sirhind was no longer a part of any tribal structure of lodi's not in sirhind and did not fight in any tribal warfare for them. The one's in Sirhind were no longer following tribal customs and their social structure was that of indus-gangetic plains. i.e Zamindari and kingship.

Read carefully how people distinguished between them and pathans from roh. He was able to fool the sultane by presenting them as savages because he was unaware of them. They led a different lifestyle and were not part of any power structure in India. Only Pathans who came to the plains in service of different sultans ever ruled over India because they part of the power structure of the sultans not because they were part of some tribe.

Where is Sirhind?

 

[icebreaker2]

His father was killed in a tribal war with Niazis

View attachment 401806

Posting snippets from passages out of context won't support your a argument. If you read the book it is very clear how much they were part of any tribal warfare or associated with it. If you have the guts why don't you post the whole passage buddy. Don't try to deny history and claim the glories of other people

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

@icebreaker2 hey how do you claim to be decendants of those conquerors when you can't even properly pronounce their names and the tribes they belong to. There's no such thing as turik u dimwitt. It's turkic in english n turkçe in turkish. Mirza ghalib n sir syed ahmed weren't turk mongols (the actual word is tatari or tartar for such thing). Have you ever seen turkmongols? They are like turkmen and uzbek. Neither Sir syed nor mirza ghalib had a single one of those tartar features. Everyone knows that every person with the surname of 'khan' isn't actually khan. They don't even know the meaning n the history behind the title. You know you are just a troll, bragging out the history that's found only on 'lackwittypedia' or books written by the angrez sarkar. And pashtuns would be fools to believe the lowlife actors n actresses of showbiz. Their entire life is based on lies and illusions. They'd do anything to deceive people into believing that they hail from a respected family and have decent background. AND AGAIN they don't have any GENETICAL proof to backup their claim. The pashtuns of pashtun diaspora have the genes and 'pashto' (pashto doesn't mean language or ethinicity only) to prove it. What do you have? Empty claims and pathetic indian n iranian (mughlian) written history? I'm damn sure if tests were run all of you posers would lack even the very basic n common scythio-pahlavi gene thats found amongst all the Pashtuns.
Pashtuns did not abandon their beautiful mountains for your so called 'fertile' lands. Why would any Pashtun leave the land of apples,peaches, cherries, grapes pomegranates and dry fruits for daal n chaawal. Why would they convert from 'Afghans' to slaves of Mughal n Angrez mahraaj. They just wanted to conquer n rule n that's it. The people of your region used to ride on donkeys we had horses n you ppl used buy horses from us. Why do you think greeks were adamant to conquer the entire afghan land when they had already brought the persian to their heels? Because they were moved by the beauty of afghans their culture language and lands. (Do study the greek version of history as well)
You don't hate Pakistanis. Yeah u don't particularly. But your statements here has a strong stench of hatred towards pashtuns. And that immense hatred has blinded you to see the truth. Hatred does prompt a person to say stupid things likevfirst saying that their ancestors were afghan and then say they were persians (who happened to have pashto tribal names with pashto meaning) and then they hated the tribes they belonged to. Guess what we don't care what you say or do against us. To the world you are like megalomanian beggars who can't be satisfied with what they have and then start stealing from others to satisfy their cravings.
The different ethinics of the entire world has tribes and tribal system n pride. The persians, the mongols the turks the arabs and even the europeans the nordic ppl the gaels n slavic etc have. Not all of the ppl relied on the caste system made by pathetic humans.
Hey i belong to Syed tribe of pashtuns. We haven't lost arabic. We are always told we are not Pashtuns. Even the pashtun ppl make fun of us n say we are not one of them. My father once met a Tunisian guy during Hajj who (surprisingly) knew about us and even our subtribes amongst pashtuns. He took him to his place and for dinner said to every one 'no ones going to sart eating before this Sheikh (my father) does" . My father n his friends were queit moved by his generosity. And we haven't lost our "Arabness". Most of our ppl do learn arabic and can communicate with arabs pretty well. In my family my father n one of my sisters know Arabic. My sis actually knows more arabic than my father. The Qureshis Hashmis n Syeds you are talking about must be some wannabees and posers like the so called khans n 'lodHis'. I know my ancestors. I didn't read stupid books to know them. Our ancestors passed that knowlege unto us. So you see you don't prove anything by books or media. You have tovreally talk to those ppl observe them their physical and psychological traits and really study them and then form unbiased opinions on them.
Lastly i say again, Bring us the Genetics of the Afghan ancestors and show the World that you truly are what you claim to be then n only then would the world believe you otherwise whatever history you are soooo insisting on would be just some fabricated stories and a world delusions for ppl like you.

Sher Shah was persian and hindustani speaker, not pashto. He was 4th generation bihari and looked like one instead of fake portraits modern day nationalists post of him. You are Syed among tribal pashtuns which mean you are fake 100% even if you speak arabic now. Anyone can learn to speak arabic. In Hyderabad arab soldiers migrated and were being employed by muslim rulers who didn't trust local recruits loyalty but they no longer speak arabic. No arab migrated to tribal pashutn lands let alone direct decedent of Muhammad (PBUH).

 

[icebreaker2]

You can satisfy your ego by calling me a racist but i am merely stating established facts. You are right, Afghans/Pashtuns in India did lose their ethnic identity but not within few generations but after becoming fully Indianized. After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others. They could not tell their tribe or other details. For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun. The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.


The Pashtuns of those days, in their graves, wont be proud of you and others linked with Altaf Hussain. Their Pashtun heart will be bleeding for Pashtuns of Afghanistan, Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and Karachi. And its not true, Babur army consisted of his own Mirzas and Pashtuns of Roh. He had allies in Ghoria Khels and Dilazaks but his Afghan wife's brother Mir Jamal also accompanied him with 1200 Yousafzais. There were also few thousands Kheshgi Pashtuns in his army who were given Kasur as reward for their settlement. And if you think that Babur had high opinions about Pashtuns settled in India, then you are wrong. In his Baburnama he calls them most Idiotic people out of all in India.


Perhaps you have not read Baburnama. Babur was very eager to earn the friendship of Pashtuns nobles in India and showered favours on them, gave them khilats and confirmed them in their jagirs instead of giving it to his Mirzas. Yet Afghan nobles were rebelling again and again and were not caring about losing jagirs granted by Babur. Why?. Its because of their sense of being Pashtun. If they were not Pashtuns they would not have been so restless and troublesome and would have preferred Mughal service without any hesitation.



Its because affairs in India did not concern those in Roh unless they were specifically invited to interfere. The Afghan Sultans of India also refrained from interfering in affairs of Roh. Hind was like Karachi, Pashtuns from Roh were migrating there for job opportunities.




You should read further, Sher Shah betrayed that Raja.





You are not paying attention to what you are copy pasting. If he was questioning his soldiers in Afghan tongue i.e Pashto then he was obviously a Pashto speaker. Read more, Abbas Sarwani says that Sher Shah greeted his grandfather in Afghan tongue.


All the human beings in the world will disagree with you. Hafiz Rahmat Khan, one of the greatest figure of Rohillas, was a Pashto speaker and doer, convince me how he has any thing to do with you because you have loudly announced that you have nothing to do with any Pashto speaker.


We are indeed not Pathans or Pathanis.....we are Pashtun or Afghans......What we say will always define Pashtun identity and what we do will shape Pashtun history. And its your Indian mentality which is looking down upon tribal people. All proper Pashtuns are tribal. "You backward tribal people", thats the language and tone of Indians, not Pashtuns. "A tribe" in Pashtun belt or immediate vicinity which speaks Farsi, Balochi or Punjabi but all of its interests, including political ones, are common with us, then they are Pashtuns. But any Alaf-Hussaini Urdu-speaker is not Pashtun.

'You can satisfy your ego by calling me a racist but i am merely stating established facts. You are right, Afghans/Pashtuns in India did lose their ethnic identity but not within few generations but after becoming fully Indianized. After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others. They could not tell their tribe or other details. For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun. The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.

Again you are spewing bullshit. 'After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others' No it did not take them a century or two to distinguish themselves from your lot. It was always done within one or two generations. Even the first generation basically left their greater tribal structure to live on new lands and live new lives in different social and cultural structures.

What do you mean by 'plain Indians' you savage culture less tribal. They were part of the ashrafi class. The modern day muslim culture of subcontinent (also true for whole subcontinent to a lesser extent)was defined by them and they went on to build great monuments. From urdu to biryani to classical music. You live in a world created by them moron.

'For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period (wtf is suri period) but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun'.

Wrong again and making up bs. People know their history just like you know which tribe you come from. If some one says they are of pashtoon descent they probably are and yes they don't know their tribes because it has no relevance to them but that does not mean you somehow are the claimant of their heritage tribal pushton.

'The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.'

The pashtuns in siraki belt have nothing to do with you tribals they speak a different language and have a different culture. They identify themselves as seraiki not tribal pashtun but you can bet they are of pashtun heritage and proud of it. They don't need a certificate from a tribal

Again bs and misinterpretation of history. Read a historical book on the topic. Even Shah walliullah invited Ahmed shah abdali because he felt Muslims were loosing power. Even Rohilla pathan/pushton supported Abdali so did many other people of different ethnicities because it was in their interest. The people in Multan region were practically his subjects, no surprise they supported him. What do you think they were going to fight him? Stop reading history with with your head filled with stupid pashton nationalism you are going to butcher it just like the hindutvas do.

'The Pashtuns of those days, in their graves, wont be proud of you and others linked with Altaf Hussain. Their Pashtun heart will be bleeding for Pashtuns of Afghanistan, Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and Karachi. And its not true, Babur army consisted of his own Mirzas and Pashtuns of Roh. He had allies in Ghoria Khels and Dilazaks but his Afghan wife's brother Mir Jamal also accompanied him with 1200 Yousafzais. There were also few thousands Kheshgi Pashtuns in his army who were given Kasur as reward for their settlement. And if you think that Babur had high opinions about Pashtuns settled in India, then you are wrong. In his Baburnama he calls them most Idiotic people out of all in India.'

Yeah off course he did. They were his rivals along with the rajputs. (I don't have very high opinion of them myself. Turik were the ultimate rulers) I am not linked with Altaf hussain Afghani r*t. I have told you this before. Babur army did not consist of mirzas or pashtuns of roh. It was consisted of his allies and hostages. Are you going to give the credit of baburs victory to his pashtuns of roh. Lol. Which ever pashton came to India endend up a pashton of hind and were part of the ashrafi class. Also, These pashtuns of roh were fighting with Ibrahim Lodhi. what does that say about your narrative. That contradicts you narrative doesn't it? In fact Ibrahim lodi's own cousin(governor of punjab)was against him. 'Pashtun heart will be bleeding...' haha yeah sure make more fairy tales if it makes you happy. What a ridiculous thing to say

'You are not paying attention to what you are copy pasting. If he was questioning his soldiers in Afghan tongue i.e Pashto then he was obviously a Pashto speaker. Read more, Abbas Sarwani says that Sher Shah greeted his grandfather in Afghan tongue.'

No shit. Abbas Sarwani was a pashton would you not greet a french guy in french. There is no doubt that Sher Shah Suri used Persian as his primary language so don't post stupid examples. They became part of the ruling nobility and Persian was their language. No one is saying he did not speak pashto but I can also guarantee you his descendants don't

'All the human beings in the world will disagree with you. Hafiz Rahmat Khan, one of the greatest figure of Rohillas, was a Pashto speaker and doer, convince me how he has any thing to do with you because you have loudly announced that you have nothing to do with any Pashto speaker.'

No one will disagree with me. Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech (1723 - April 1774) was part and parcel of Mughal nobility. He was colored in their color. Had their habits and was one of them and not part of Barech tribe living hundreds of kilometer away from. He was second generation and I'm sure he spoke pashto but he did not identify with the tribals of Roh. His loyalty was not with them nor did he showed any allegiance to them nor was he bound by their tribal structure. That is one of the reasons Pashtons from different tribes worked well together because they did not identify with their tribal identity but with Rohilla identity

'We are indeed not Pathans or Pathanis.....we are Pashtun or Afghans......What we say will always define Pashtun identity and what we do will shape Pashtun history. And its your Indian mentality which is looking down upon tribal people. All proper Pashtuns are tribal. "You backward tribal people", thats the language and tone of Indians, not Pashtuns. "A tribe" in Pashtun belt or immediate vicinity which speaks Farsi, Balochi or Punjabi but all of its interests, including political ones, are common with us, then they are Pashtuns. But any Alaf-Hussaini Urdu-speaker is not Pashtun'

Indeed you are not a Pashtun of hind or sirhind or punjab. You are of tribal badlands and that is the crux of my argument so do don't try to claim our history. You will not define identity of Pashtuns but you are free to define identity of tribal pashtuns because you are one of them

'Indian mentality'. Who are you calling Indian, Afghani cockroach. You think my heritage makes me Indian. Have you lost your mind? You are bearly Pakistani. Your people were side players in it's creation and have little influence on it's culture. Pakistan is the product of the culture of my ancestors. Bow down to your overlords and accept facts or go live with your opium addicted brothers across the border

Keep yourself limited to yourself and don't try to define the identity of other people whether they associate with Altaf Husssain or queen Victoria

'Perhaps you have not read Baburnama. Babur was very eager to earn the friendship of Pashtuns nobles in India and showered favours on them, gave them khilats and confirmed them in their jagirs instead of giving it to his Mirzas. Yet Afghan nobles were rebelling again and again and were not caring about losing jagirs granted by Babur. Why?. Its because of their sense of being Pashtun. If they were not Pashtuns they would not have been so restless and troublesome and would have preferred Mughal service without any hesitation.'

Again stupid irrelevant bs. It is not even worth answering. Neither does it show they were associated in any way with the tribals of roh. Off course they rebelling. They wanted their power and status back and they were not the only ones rebelling so were other people who lost power. And are you telling me no Afghans of hind were loyal to Akbar? Funny how you are connecting typical medieval politics with pashtunism of KPK and these pathans with tribals of Roh. Bring something more solid.

'Its because affairs in India did not concern those in Roh unless they were specifically invited to interfere. The Afghan Sultans of India also refrained from interfering in affairs of Roh. Hind was like Karachi, Pashtuns from Roh were migrating there for job opportunities.'

No one 'specifically invited' them buddy. They were not worth an invite. You are talking as if the advanced state of Roh brought huge armies to help pashtons of hind and changed the history. Lol

No one cared about roh because there was nothing in roh. The price was the indus-gangetic plains. Like no one throughout history has cared about arabain peninsula. They just captured the coast and left the arab tribals in the deserts.

'You should read further, Sher Shah betrayed that Raja'

And he fought Lohani ruler of bihar and was nearly assassinated by them. what's your point buddy

 

[icebreaker2]

I just find it hilarious this lunny toon from some godforsaken dirt patch is trying to claim the legacy of the rulers of delhi, Rohillas, nawabs of Oudh, nawabs of Bhopal etc. while at the same time cursing at their descendants. Tell Sheryar Khan that you and not him is the kith and kin of the nawabs of Bhopal and tell me which patch of land was ruled by your great grandfather and what monuments did he build?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahryar_Khan

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

I just find it hilarious this lunny toon from some godforsaken dirt patch is trying to claim the legacy of the rulers of delhi, Rohillas, nawabs of Oudh, nawabs of Bhopal etc. while at the same time cursing at their descendants. Tell Sheryar Khan that you and not him is the kith and kin of the nawabs of Bhopal and tell me which patch of land was ruled by your great grandfather and what monuments did he build?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahryar_Khan

Foolish to look at history with modern lens. Hate urdu speaking pathans but claim all of their ancestor achievements as their own while living in some tribal village which mean his direct ancestors didn't play any important role in history of subcontinent. ironic

I fail to see how direct descendants can't claim their heritage while someone else far away can?

 

[Mian Babban]

What do you mean by 'plain Indians' you savage culture less tribal. They were part of the ashrafi class. The modern day muslim culture of subcontinent (also true for whole subcontinent to a lesser extent)was defined by them and they went on to build great monuments. From urdu to biryani to classical music. You live in a world created by them moron.

On one hand you are claiming to be from "Ashrafi caste" of Indians from Rampur and on the other hand it triggers you when i call you Indian. You are a confused individual.

The pashtuns in siraki belt have nothing to do with you tribals they speak a different language and have a different culture. They identify themselves as seraiki not tribal pashtun but you can bet they are of pashtun heritage and proud of it. They don't need a certificate from a tribal

I was not talking about Seraiki belt. Kasur and Malerkotla of Punjab in 18th century (not today's) was on my mind. While they had retained their Afghan identity in 18th century, same is not the case today as they have become completely Punjabized/Indianized. Today very few people in Kasur district identity themselves as 'Pathan' or 'Afghan' even though they could bring forth 20,000 men to the field in early 18th century.

Babur army did not consist of mirzas or pashtuns of roh. It was consisted of his allies and hostages.

His army, before crossing Indus, consisted of Mirza (i.e Mughals) and recruits from Afghanistan which were mostly Pashtuns.

Are you going to give the credit of baburs victory to his pashtuns of roh. Lol.

Actually Khushal Khan Khattak did. He attributes the Babur's victory at battle of Panipat to Pashtuns of Roh. Are you going to insult our great poet? stop Loling

Which ever pashton came to India endend up a pashton of hind and were part of the ashrafi class.

You and your Indian Ashrafi caste. Pashtuns were not part of any Indian caste, they were just Pashtuns/Afghans.

No one will disagree with me. Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech (1723 - April 1774) was part and parcel of Mughal nobility. He was colored in their color. Had their habits and was one of them and not part of Barech tribe living hundreds of kilometer away from. He was second generation and I'm sure he spoke pashto but he did not identify with the tribals of Roh. His loyalty was not with them nor did he showed any allegiance to them nor was he bound by their tribal structure. That is one of the reasons Pashtons from different tribes worked well together because they did not identify with their tribal identity but with Rohilla identity

Its amusing to see you struggling with history and coming up with laughable explanations. I am engaging you in discussion because your ignorance about history is entertaining. Hafiz Rahmat Khan was born in Pakhtunkhwa and he migrated to India when he was a grown up man. Refer to his biography "Gulistan-i-Rahmat" written by his son. He was not part of the Mughal nobility, he did not have any mansab. And he displayed a great deal of Pashtun-hood by coming to the rescue of Bangash nawabs on several occasions. If he was an Indian like you, he would not have written books in Pashto and would not have talked about Pashtun tribes in Khulasatul-Ansab.

Indeed you are not a Pashtun of hind or sirhind or punjab. You are of tribal badlands and that is the crux of my argument so do don't try to claim our history. You will not define identity of Pashtuns but you are free to define identity of tribal pashtuns because you are one of them

You are an Indian and an Urduspeaker and from qaum of Altaf Hussain. You have nothing to do with us or our past.

Bow down to your overlords and accept facts or go live with your opium addicted brothers across the border

You are mistaking me for a mureed of Altaf Hussain, we dont bow our heads or bend our knees to other human beings like your kind and i am not bragging.

No one 'specifically invited' them buddy. They were not worth an invite. You are talking as if the advanced state of Roh brought huge armies to help pashtons of hind and changed the history. Lol

Roh was not a state, it was a region with a defined geography. Yes they changed the history, they ensured the survival of Lodi kingdom when it was struggling against much powerful Sharqi kingdom.

I just find it hilarious this lunny toon from some godforsaken dirt patch is trying to claim the legacy of the rulers of delhi, Rohillas, nawabs of Oudh, nawabs of Bhopal etc. while at the same time cursing at their descendants. Tell Sheryar Khan that you and not him is the kith and kin of the nawabs of Bhopal and tell me which patch of land was ruled by your great grandfather and what monuments did he build?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahryar_Khan

I admit he is indeed a descendant of Pashtuns, but he is not a Pashtun. His ancestor Dost Muhammad Khan looked behaved, and spoke like those in Tirah , "savage tribals" in your words. Just like 'Syed Mustafa Kamal' is not Arab , in the same way Shahryar Khan is not a Pashtun. Both belongs to the Hindustani Mohajir community.

 

[Avra]

Sher Shah was persian and hindustani speaker, not pashto. He was 4th generation bihari and looked like one instead of fake portraits modern day nationalists post of him. You are Syed among tribal pashtuns which mean you are fake 100% even if you speak arabic now. Anyone can learn to speak arabic. In Hyderabad arab soldiers migrated and were being employed by muslim rulers who didn't trust local recruits loyalty but they no longer speak arabic. No arab migrated to tribal pashutn lands let alone direct decedent of Muhammad (PBUH).

I am not the one suffering from inferiority complex. I'm not the one putting Arab in my name like some attention w****. If not provoked i wouldn't have mentioned anything related to my being Arab. I'm satisfied wkth being A Pashtun. i don't conside arab a privilege like some posers think it is. i'm not going to start bragging here how genuinely 'arab' my heritage is. Arabs are perfectly capable of recognizing their own kin, the decision lies entitely with them. They don't need excerpts from books and false theories. And lemme tell you that we know for sure that we are arabs. We do have genes to prove that. But Are you sure Arabs never migrated here. Cuz our genitics and your history says otherwise. Just because you hate Pashtuns and are desperate to do anything, say anything to prove your hatred is rightful, doesn't mean you can hide the truth by sprouting some misconceptions and false claims. You can go and argue your irrational and biased concepts with the arabs who believe otherwise. Besides Pashtuns weren't the converts of hinduism. Pashtuns were followers of monetheism at the time of Muslim arrival in Afghanistan. Arabs were culturally, genetically and linguistically more closer to the people who were monotheists than to hindus who where the most rebellious lot next to persians at that time.
I'm sure u don't want to embarass youself like your lunatic racist bigot buddy icebreaker2 here who can't stick to one opinion. He's made a total cake of himself by sharing history from 'historical books' written and backed by Angrez sarkar. None of his snippets prove that he is a true descendant of Afghan. His meaningless and incomplete contexts just stated that the Afghans ruled over indian hindus n that's it. Nothing more.
When did arab migrate to hyderabad? I mean hyderabaadis were hindus right? Why would hindus hire arabs as their soldiers? All i know that when hindus converted to Islam they were too ashamed of their identities cuz most of them belonged to lowerclass. So the easiest solution was to make an afghan tribal name, a turkce or persian title or an arab surname (these are the enthnic groups that ruled over hindustan) their own sur name and claim their tribes as their own. It helped them quiet sufficiently cuz nobody questioned them and their herediatery for a long time. Now the modern science does challenge that and they are unable to prove their ancestry through genetical tests. All your so called syed, arab, afghan and turkic ancestory has been nullified by science. Even the lackowitty pedia agrees with me here.
Are you really sure he wasn't ethnic Pashtun?? He wasn't bihaari he was just a governor of bihaar at the time ofvmughal rule. If he wasn't pashtun then why is his name pashto like? Do you know the meaning of his name and the tribe? (A minor clearification, his portraits were made by mughals not by pastuns)
Why are you having the 'arab' name after being hyderabaadi? Isn't being 'just hyderabaadi' enough? Doesn't being hyderabaadi hold the same allure as being arab does? Embrace your identity is all i can say to you. There's nothing wrong in being related to the historical hindu caste system. Sugarcoating doesn't help in such significant matters.
We know arabic not because we want to make ppl impress. We don't learn it for anyother reason except to feel closer to our arabness n our arab ancestors. We just want to be able to communicate with them. N we sure as hell don't need to prove our syedness to sleazemongers who are too ashamed of their ancestory that they would grab whatever straw is thrown their way in order to hide their true self.
Lastly i know you haters would say anything to promote hatred. Ethnic cleansing supporters like you even consider molifying us more sacred than offering prayers. So if you are going to get more hateful and utter mre degrading stuff here, don't bother to reply. Cuz i'm not going to correct more of your biased nonsence here.

 

[Vishvamitra]

You can satisfy your ego by calling me a racist but i am merely stating established facts. You are right, Afghans/Pashtuns in India did lose their ethnic identity but not within few generations but after becoming fully Indianized. After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others. They could not tell their tribe or other details. For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun. The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.


The Pashtuns of those days, in their graves, wont be proud of you and others linked with Altaf Hussain. Their Pashtun heart will be bleeding for Pashtuns of Afghanistan, Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and Karachi. And its not true, Babur army consisted of his own Mirzas and Pashtuns of Roh. He had allies in Ghoria Khels and Dilazaks but his Afghan wife's brother Mir Jamal also accompanied him with 1200 Yousafzais. There were also few thousands Kheshgi Pashtuns in his army who were given Kasur as reward for their settlement. And if you think that Babur had high opinions about Pashtuns settled in India, then you are wrong. In his Baburnama he calls them most Idiotic people out of all in India.


Perhaps you have not read Baburnama. Babur was very eager to earn the friendship of Pashtuns nobles in India and showered favours on them, gave them khilats and confirmed them in their jagirs instead of giving it to his Mirzas. Yet Afghan nobles were rebelling again and again and were not caring about losing jagirs granted by Babur. Why?. Its because of their sense of being Pashtun. If they were not Pashtuns they would not have been so restless and troublesome and would have preferred Mughal service without any hesitation.



Its because affairs in India did not concern those in Roh unless they were specifically invited to interfere. The Afghan Sultans of India also refrained from interfering in affairs of Roh. Hind was like Karachi, Pashtuns from Roh were migrating there for job opportunities.




You should read further, Sher Shah betrayed that Raja.





You are not paying attention to what you are copy pasting. If he was questioning his soldiers in Afghan tongue i.e Pashto then he was obviously a Pashto speaker. Read more, Abbas Sarwani says that Sher Shah greeted his grandfather in Afghan tongue.


All the human beings in the world will disagree with you. Hafiz Rahmat Khan, one of the greatest figure of Rohillas, was a Pashto speaker and doer, convince me how he has any thing to do with you because you have loudly announced that you have nothing to do with any Pashto speaker.


We are indeed not Pathans or Pathanis.....we are Pashtun or Afghans......What we say will always define Pashtun identity and what we do will shape Pashtun history. And its your Indian mentality which is looking down upon tribal people. All proper Pashtuns are tribal. "You backward tribal people", thats the language and tone of Indians, not Pashtuns. "A tribe" in Pashtun belt or immediate vicinity which speaks Farsi, Balochi or Punjabi but all of its interests, including political ones, are common with us, then they are Pashtuns. But any Alaf-Hussaini Urdu-speaker is not Pashtun.

Even upper 3 castes have sub tribes (Gotras)

 

[Mian Babban]

Sher Shah was persian and hindustani speaker, not pashto. He was 4th generation bihari and looked like one instead of fake portraits modern day nationalists post of him. You are Syed among tribal pashtuns which mean you are fake 100% even if you speak arabic now. Anyone can learn to speak arabic. In Hyderabad arab soldiers migrated and were being employed by muslim rulers who didn't trust local recruits loyalty but they no longer speak arabic. No arab migrated to tribal pashutn lands let alone direct decedent of Muhammad (PBUH).

Actually Arabs settled in very large numbers in Northern Afghanistan which they conquered in early days (they did not conquer Pashtun belt down south, only forayed into it)). The early Arab and Persian Geographers like Ibn-i-Haukal , Istakhari etc throw light on the Arab colonies in present-day Northern Afghanistan and gives the numbers of Arabs in each colony. The official history of Mahmud Ghaznavi mentions these Arabs to be the vanguard of his army as cavalry. The term Tazik (Tajik) was at first used for Arab settlers in Persia and Khurasan (including Northern Afghanistan). Its because "Tazi" (from which the term Tazik is derived) was a legendary Arab king who ruled over Persia in ancient times.

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

I am not the one suffering from inferiority complex. I'm not the one putting Arab in my name like some attention w****. If not provoked i wouldn't have mentioned anything related to my being Arab. I'm satisfied wkth being A Pashtun. i don't conside arab a privilege like some posers think it is. i'm not going to start bragging here how genuinely 'arab' my heritage is. Arabs are perfectly capable of recognizing their own kin, the decision lies entitely with them. They don't need excerpts from books and false theories. And lemme tell you that we know for sure that we are arabs. We do have genes to prove that. But Are you sure Arabs never migrated here. Cuz our genitics and your history says otherwise. Just because you hate Pashtuns and are desperate to do anything, say anything to prove your hatred is rightful, doesn't mean you can hide the truth by sprouting some misconceptions and false claims. You can go and argue your irrational and biased concepts with the arabs who believe otherwise. Besides Pashtuns weren't the converts of hinduism. Pashtuns were followers of monetheism at the time of Muslim arrival in Afghanistan. Arabs were culturally, genetically and linguistically more closer to the people who were monotheists than to hindus who where the most rebellious lot next to persians at that time.
I'm sure u don't want to embarass youself like your lunatic racist bigot buddy icebreaker2 here who can't stick to one opinion. He's made a total cake of himself by sharing history from 'historical books' written and backed by Angrez sarkar. None of his snippets prove that he is a true descendant of Afghan. His meaningless and incomplete contexts just stated that the Afghans ruled over indian hindus n that's it. Nothing more.
When did arab migrate to hyderabad? I mean hyderabaadis were hindus right? Why would hindus hire arabs as their soldiers? All i know that when hindus converted to Islam they were too ashamed of their identities cuz most of them belonged to lowerclass. So the easiest solution was to make an afghan tribal name, a turkce or persian title or an arab surname (these are the enthnic groups that ruled over hindustan) their own sur name and claim their tribes as their own. It helped them quiet sufficiently cuz nobody questioned them and their herediatery for a long time. Now the modern science does challenge that and they are unable to prove their ancestry through genetical tests. All your so called syed, arab, afghan and turkic ancestory has been nullified by science. Even the lackowitty pedia agrees with me here.
Are you really sure he wasn't ethnic Pashtun?? He wasn't bihaari he was just a governor of bihaar at the time ofvmughal rule. If he wasn't pashtun then why is his name pashto like? Do you know the meaning of his name and the tribe? (A minor clearification, his portraits were made by mughals not by pastuns)
Why are you having the 'arab' name after being hyderabaadi? Isn't being 'just hyderabaadi' enough? Doesn't being hyderabaadi hold the same allure as being arab does? Embrace your identity is all i can say to you. There's nothing wrong in being related to the historical hindu caste system. Sugarcoating doesn't help in such significant matters.
We know arabic not because we want to make ppl impress. We don't learn it for anyother reason except to feel closer to our arabness n our arab ancestors. We just want to be able to communicate with them. N we sure as hell don't need to prove our syedness to sleazemongers who are too ashamed of their ancestory that they would grab whatever straw is thrown their way in order to hide their true self.
Lastly i know you haters would say anything to promote hatred. Ethnic cleansing supporters like you even consider molifying us more sacred than offering prayers. So if you are going to get more hateful and utter mre degrading stuff here, don't bother to reply. Cuz i'm not going to correct more of your biased nonsence here.

From what I am reading icebreaker2 have left you and other nationalist racists speechless. You are direct descendent of Muhammad (PBUH) living among tribals in god forsaken land. Hate to burst your buble but that sound unrealistic. Arabs living in north afghanistan which is tajik land is historically accurate but your story is fake.

Suri was afghan by lineage but by 4th generation he was just like any other ashrafi muslim or their current day descendent urdu speaking pathans. Suri, Lodhi etc non of them were first gen tribal pashtuns. This is what icebreaker is trying to say here. They spoke, behaved like ashrafi muslims and not tribals. I don't give importance to language compared to lineages. Tomorrow all of tribals will be speaking urdu. Certainly those in Karachi over time will loss their pashto and tribal ways along with it.

I don't claim to be Syed, astagfarullah.

"Before Indian independence, Barkas served as the military barracks of the Nizam of Hyderabad. The Nizams were surrounded by hostile rulers in the Deccan, and chose to employ Arabs instead of local military, these Arabs who formed the bulk of the Nizams' personal army were more reliable as they could not defect to the rival states unlike locals and were trustworthy because the Asaf Jahi rulers also claimed Arab ancestry. The Arab population increased during this period, settling in mainly in barracks on the outskirts of the walled, gated city."

 

[Mian Babban]

Suri was afghan by lineage but by 4th generation he was just like any other ashrafi muslim or their current day descendent urdu speaking pathans. Suri, Lodhi etc non of them were first gen tribal pashtuns. This is what icebreaker is trying to say here. They spoke, behaved like ashrafi muslims and not tribals. I don't give importance to language compared to lineages. Tomorrow all of tribals will be speaking urdu. Certainly those in Karachi over time will loss their pashto and tribal ways along with it.

There were indeed cultural, linguistic and racial changes taking place in them and they were getting Indianized with time.........But Icebreaker is making a ridiculous claim that they did not identify themselves as Pashtuns, that they did not act as Pashtuns and considered themselves distinct nation and were not organized along tribal lines. I have already proved to him that it was not the case. Not only they acted as Pashtuns but during the Lodi period they were organized along the tribal lines. Lohanis were under their Lohani chiefs, Sarwanis were under their Sarwani chiefs etc. They were mixed, some were fresh arrivals from Roh while others were descendants of Pashtuns settled during rule of previous dynasties. Some of the could speak Pashto, some could not. Half-Indian Afghans of India were looked down upon by those of Roh. For example a Niazi chieftain of Roh refused to give daughter to the half-Indian nephew of Sher Shah according to Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi. Full Pashtun parentage was held in high esteem by India's Pashtuns for example Sultan Shah Lodi preferred his nephew Bahlol as his successor because he was a full Pashtun while his own son was born from an Indian mother.

https://www.facebook.com/