The absolute history of Ghilijis

[Gorgin Khan]

So, for you an unreferenced wikipedia statement/claim is reliable/acceptable but the official results of population censuses are not!!?

I believe that even that 3 million figure is an exaggeration. It's very unlikely that Khataks alone make up almost 8-10% of the total Pashtun population. As per the British India censuses, Khataks, although the largest Pathan tribe of present day Pakistan, constituted significantly less than 10% of the entire Pathan population.

Yousafzais are one of the biggest tribal Confederacy. While khattaks are nowhere near them, in size or in numbers. First understand that yousufzais are confederation of many tribes while khattaks itself is a tribe. Same goes for ghiljis by total number, it is the largest confederacy of pashtoons and contains numerous sub tribes.

Basically you want rely only on british sources while discussing Numbers of pashtoon tribal population which is much prehistoric then the british rule itself. And these confederacies existed before british rule its not a recent phenomenon. Did the british counted the population of all the yousufzai subtribes? Because not everyone in these subtribes will call themselves as yousufzai rather he will refer to his immediate tribe (subtribe).

Stop talking about things you know nothing about, you are only embarrassing yourself. The last caste census was conducted in 1931 by the British. Ask those who know. And please tell us where did the 2017 census form even ask about one's caste/tribe or ethnicity? :

Why would I ask a Pashtun (or anyone else for that matter) about stats/figures that have been officially recorded and released (which are easily available)?....

And now anyone who refuses to accept your childish claim that 40% Pashtuns are Yousufzai (your caste) and points it out to you that Khataks outnumbered Yusufzais as per the available official records is 'not even a Pakistani' ??

I would suggest that you will find these stats from nadra very easily. Because when we make our CNIC there is a place for caste religion etc which is further supported by Domiciles. Even it existed before the CNIC was computerized.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I would suggest that you will find these stats from nadra very easily. Because when we make our CNIC there is a place for caste religion etc which is further supported by Domiciles. Even it existed before the CNIC was computerized.

Official censuses in Pakistan do not include a column of caste. While castes are generally registered, no government document provides caste-based segregated data. NADRA does not maintain caste statistics, nor is it mandated to compile and release any such relevant information. Therefore, there is no authentic data available on the number of castes and their population in Pakistan.

Yousafzais are one of the biggest tribal Confederacy. While khattaks are nowhere near them, in size or in numbers. First understand that yousufzais are confederation of many tribes while khattaks itself is a tribe. Same goes for ghiljis by total number, it is the largest confederacy of pashtoons and contains numerous sub tribes.

While Ghilzai indeed is a confederation of many tribes, Yusufzai is just a tribe (having several sub-tribes of course)

Did the british counted the population of all the yousufzai subtribes? Because not everyone in these subtribes will call themselves as yousufzai rather he will refer to his immediate tribe (subtribe).

Yes, they did mention several Yousufzai sub-tribes and counted them as one single tribe.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Official censuses in Pakistan do not include a column of caste. While castes are generally registered, no government document provides caste-based segregated data. NADRA does not maintain caste statistics, nor is it mandated to compile and release any such relevant information. Therefore, there is no authentic data available on the number of castes and their population in Pakistan.
While Ghilzai indeed is a confederation of many tribes, Yusufzai is just a tribe (having several sub-tribes of course)

Yes, they did mention several Yousufzai sub-tribes and counted them as one single tribe.

The data is there , if not segregate that is by design now if they dont use it or dont want to is upto the government. Yet it will not provide true representation , i will agree because it will depend on how they classify the caste subtribes . Similar question goes if today we cannot how did the british did then, and how reliable they are is a big question mark because all these areas where yousufzais are settled specially malakand and swat etc were never totally under british influence for very long periods and all at once .This claim is not true while most of history , geography and demography is referring otherwise.Because if you begin from sawabi and go upto swat you will mostly find yousufzais although a big number of them are also settled around peshawar valley.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The data is there , if not segregate that is by design now if they dont use it or dont want to is upto the government. Yet it will not provide true representation , i will agree. Similar questions go if today we cannot how did the british did then and how reliable they are is a big question mark because all these areas were yousufzais specially malakand and swat etc are setteled were never totally under british influence for very long periods ,while most of history , geography and demography is refering otherwise and english claims Khattaks are a bigger tribe. Not True!

NADRA's database is not very accurate, and it's far from complete. It can provide 'sample' but it cannot replace Census i.e. counting everyone in a population.

To carry out a caste census all you need to do is to add a 'caste' column to the Census form and you can easily determine the total number of castes and their populations in Pakistan. The British carried out this practice from 1881 to 1931 in British India, after which the caste column was removed (due to harsh criticism by the Congress).

Pakistan's Constitution prohibits any kind of discrimination based on caste or creed, and we are a Muslim country, so there is no point in carrying out a caste-based census. Therefore, the only reliable caste database available to us is from the Colonial era which, while arguably imperfect, far exceeds in accuracy and dependability any other available source or claim.

... Yet it will not provide true representation , i will agree because it will depend on how they classify the caste subtribes . ...

Identity is a matter of choice. If a sub-tribe chooses to identify itself as a distinct tribe, then it should be considered a separate tribe. Tribes split off and form distinctive tribes over time. That's how it has always been....

 

[Gorgin Khan]

We are not talking about british census of whole indian , I already explained why these figures are not true in regard to yousufzai .

Secondly there is no prove ghiljis are turkic. No historical strong evidence to prove it. Pashto changes as you go from north to south , the dialects might vary which even vary from tribe to tribe even the food can but the interesting part is they have more in common that is culture , secondly language and thirdly code of coduct "pashtunwali". The code will remain same in the north and in the south ,so does the language and culture.

 

[Crusher]

We are not talking about british census of whole indian , I already explained why these figures are not true in regard to yousufzai because of influential matters.

Secondly there is no prove ghiljis are turkic. No historical strong evidence to prove it. Pashto changes as you go from north to south , the dialects might vary which even vary from tribe to tribe even the food can.

Why Kambojas were called "Asvakan" (the father word of the modern corrupted afghan word) in ancient texts of hindus ruling most of eastern areas of modern Afghanistan. You guys should be proud of Kamjojas whose nickname "Asvakan" (Afghan) you have hijacked after the disappearance of Kambojas in Afghanistan. Though remanents of ancient Kamboja Asvakans of Afghanistan are still found in their purest form in "Kamdesh" area of Nuristan where they are called Kam or Kamoz etc. even to this day. The original Aspasioi (modern yousufzai) were actually a subtribe of Kambojas were found in peshwar and kabul valley before they were defeated by Alexander the greek.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kom_people_(Afghanistan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambojas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aśvaka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_(ethnonym)

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Why Kambojas were called "Asvakan" (the father word of the modern corrupted afghan word) in ancient texts of hindus ruling most of eastern areas of modern Afghanistan. You guys should be proud of Kamjojas whose nickname "Asvakan" (Afghan) you have hijacked after the disappearance of Kambojas in Afghanistan. Though remanents of ancient Kamboja Asvakans of Afghanistan are still found in their purest form in "Kamdesh" area of Nuristan where they are called Kam or Kamoz etc. even to this day. The original Aspasioi (modern yousufzai) were actually a subtribe of Kambojas were found in peshwar and kabul valley before they were defeated by Alexander the greek.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kom_people_(Afghanistan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambojas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aśvaka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_(ethnonym)

These are all claims as i said. I will give references which will give you references from the same wikipedia that will give you total different perspective. It always says probably .No one provides a link nor evidence. While as far as i know there is no such claim in the pushto literature about ghiljis.

According to 19th-century linguist James Darmesteter and modern linguist Michael M. T. Henderson, Pashto is "descended from Avestan".[16][17][18] The Rabatak inscription of Emperor Kanishka written in Bactrian and Greek contains words borrowed from Pashto due to their proximity to the modern Pashto language.[61]

Strabo, who lived between 64 BC and 24 CE, explains that the tribes inhabiting the lands west of the Indus River were part of Ariana and to their east was India. This was around the time when the area inhabited by the Pashtuns was governed by the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. From the 3rd century CE onward, they are mostly referred to by the name Afghan (Abgan)[62][63][64] and their language as "Afghani".[13]

Scholars such as Abdul Hai Habibi and others believe that the earliest modern Pashto work dates back to Amir Kror Suri of the early Ghurid period in the eighth century, and they use the writings found in Pata Khazana. However, this is disputed by several modern experts such as David Neil MacKenzie and Lucia Serena Loi.[65][66] Pata Khazana is a Pashto manuscript[67] claimed to be written by Mohammad Hotak under the patronage of the Pashtun emperor Hussain Hotak in Kandahar. Pata Khazana claims to contain an anthology of Pashto poets from the early Ghurid period up to the Hotak period in the eighteenth century.[66]

From the 16th century, Pashto poetry become very popular among the Pashtuns. Some of those who wrote in Pashto are Bayazid Pir Roshan (a major inventor of the Pashto alphabet), Khushal Khan Khattak, Rahman Baba, Nazo Tokhi, and Ahmad Shah Durrani, founder of the modern state of Afghanistan or the Durrani Empire.

In modern times, noticing the incursion of Persian and Arabic vocabulary, there is a strong desire to "purify" Pashto by restoring its old vocabulary.[68][self-published source][69][70]

It is the same wikipedia talking totally something elses. There are too much missing links to the chain and the claims are very contrarty. And most of these writers are writing in 18th and 19th century and making these claims. Nobody have the answer.

 

[Crusher]

These are all claims as i said. I will give references which will give you references from the same wikipedia that will give you total different perspective. It always says probably .No one provides a link nor evidence. While as far as i know there is no such claim in the pushto literature about ghiljis.

According to 19th-century linguist James Darmesteter and modern linguist Michael M. T. Henderson, Pashto is "descended from Avestan".[16][17][18] The Rabatak inscription of Emperor Kanishka written in Bactrian and Greek contains words borrowed from Pashto due to their proximity to the modern Pashto language.[61]

Strabo, who lived between 64 BC and 24 CE, explains that the tribes inhabiting the lands west of the Indus River were part of Ariana and to their east was India. This was around the time when the area inhabited by the Pashtuns was governed by the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. From the 3rd century CE onward, they are mostly referred to by the name Afghan (Abgan)[62][63][64] and their language as "Afghani".[13]

Scholars such as Abdul Hai Habibi and others believe that the earliest modern Pashto work dates back to Amir Kror Suri of the early Ghurid period in the eighth century, and they use the writings found in Pata Khazana. However, this is disputed by several modern experts such as David Neil MacKenzie and Lucia Serena Loi.[65][66] Pata Khazana is a Pashto manuscript[67] claimed to be written by Mohammad Hotak under the patronage of the Pashtun emperor Hussain Hotak in Kandahar. Pata Khazana claims to contain an anthology of Pashto poets from the early Ghurid period up to the Hotak period in the eighteenth century.[66]

From the 16th century, Pashto poetry become very popular among the Pashtuns. Some of those who wrote in Pashto are Bayazid Pir Roshan (a major inventor of the Pashto alphabet), Khushal Khan Khattak, Rahman Baba, Nazo Tokhi, and Ahmad Shah Durrani, founder of the modern state of Afghanistan or the Durrani Empire.

In modern times, noticing the incursion of Persian and Arabic vocabulary, there is a strong desire to "purify" Pashto by restoring its old vocabulary.[68][self-published source][69][70]

It is the same wikipedia talking totally something elses. There are too much missing links to the chain and the claims are very contrarty.

You still didn't answer me why pashto speakers in both Pakistan and Afghanistan call themselves "Afghan" when word "Afghan" actually derives from "Asvakan" or "Asvakayan" which was nickname of the ancient rulers of modern Afghanistan namely Kambojas before the invasion of Alexander. There is only one explanation for this that the original "Afghan" were Kambojas and their language was the language of the Kamjobas. And Kambojas were an east iranic people related to Saka in the central asian territories, in fact most scholars believe that Avestan was the language of Kambjoas, so no wonder a modern people calling themselves "Afghan" (corrupted nickname of ancient Kambojas) speak an iranic language "pashto" which happens to be related to "Avestan". Everthing points to

Kambojas-->Asvakan-->Avakan-->Avagan-->Afghan
Kamboja language = Avestan --> ...transitional langauges... --> modern Pashto (descendant of Avestan)

By the way Kambojas/Asvakans were pretty much a hindu type people despite speaking an "iranic" language which means that even in ancient times the "religion" and "language" were not necessarily derived from the same cultures. Just like us we speak indic/iranic langauges now in pakistan but our religion islam is arabic.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

You still didn't answer me why pashto speakers in both Pakistan and Afghanistan call themselves "Afghan" when word "Afghan" actually derives from "Asvakan" or "Asvakayan" which was nickname of the ancient rulers of modern Afghanistan namely Kamojas before the invasion of Alexander. There is only one explanation for this that the original "Afghan" were Kambojas and their language was the language of the Kamjobas. And Kambojas were an east iranic people related to Saka in the central asian territories, in fact most scholars believe that Avestan was the language of Kambjoas, so no wonder a modern people calling themselves "Afghan" (corrupted nickname of ancient Kambojas) speak an iranic language "pashto" which happens to be related to "Avestan". Everthing points to

Kambojas-->Asvakan-->Avakan-->Avagan-->Afghan
Kamboja language = Avestan --> ...transitional langauges... --> modern Pashto (descendant of Avestan)

By the way Kambojas/Asvakans were pretty much a hindu type people despite speaking an "iranic" language which means that even in ancient times the "religion" and "language" were not necessarily derived from the same cultures. Just like us we speak indic/iranic langauges now in pakistan but our religion islam is arabic.

Answering this would be the same to asnwering this

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

These are claims these most recent coming from india. As i said answer this then. Who will you believe. Give me some evidence where the transition you made takes place. As i said these are not evidences and pashto literature does not relate to anything like that. For me the question of malik afghana or asvakan is the same

 

[Crusher]

Answering this would be the same to asnwering this

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

These are claims these most recent coming from india. As i said answer this then. Who will you believe. Give me some evidence where the transition you made takes place. As i said these are not evidences and pashto literature does not relate to anything like that. For me the question of malik afghana or asvakan is the same

There is BIG difference between "malik afghana" and "Kamboja Asvakan" because the latter "actually" lived on the same lands where the modern pashto speakers live and spoke Avestan language from which pashto language descends. Just like our languages punjabi, sindhi, kashmiri etc. are descended from Sanskrit, your language pashto also didn't fall from sky, it also descended form an ancient language called Avestan which was the language of Kambojas. Sanskrit and Avestan were closely related languages so it is understandable that Kambojas being neighbors of Sanskrits speaking populations to the east were culturally and religiously more tied with them instead of their linguistic cousins further west in persia.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

There is BIG difference between "malik afghana" and "Kamboja Asvakan" because the latter "actually" lived on the same lands where the modern pashto speakers live and spoke Avestan language from which pashto language descends. Just like our languages punjabi, sindhi, kashmiri etc. are descended from Sanskrit, your language pashto also didn't fall from sky, it also descended form an ancient language called Avestan which was the language of Kambojas. Sanskrit and Avestan were closely related languages so it is understandable that Kambojas being neighbors of Sanskrits speaking populations to the east were culturally and religiously more tied with them instead of their linguistic cousins further west in persia.

As i said these are claims? where is the piece of evidence ? where are is the link to the chain? You are quoting wikipedia where somebody is just claiming. In regards to malak afghana my argument is that the jews lived in afghanistan . There are stones with hebrew inscriptions in mardan and parts of qandahar afghanistan . In regards to gandhara period there are stupas evidence of gandhara civilaziation everywhere starting from lower parts of KPK and upto bamyan. Their are inscriptions from the reign of ashoka in afghanistan and pakistan. My question is why are pushtuns asvakan and not israeli. While your source says that kambojas are afghans. My evidences say they are israelis and the name afghana predates kamboja era itself. The tomb of malak afghana or qais abdur rashid is located on top of a moutain takht e- sulaimani in kohe sulaiman range.

Where is the link ? which proves that they were not jews ? or not from india or from iran ?

 

[dani92]

It was war, this stuff happened. They were more than willing to do the same to Muslims, they just didn't get the opportunity.

Well many of their wars specially Aybak, ghaznavi, and ghori was not to spread or defend Islam but the goal of these invasions was to loot the wealth of the Hindu temples.

 

[Hamza913]

Well many of their wars specially Aybak, ghaznavi, and ghori was not to spread or defend Islam but the goal of these invasions was to loot the wealth of the Hindu temples.

That's utter rubbish lol, if Mahmud Ghaznavi was just a secular conqueror he wouldn't have gone after Isma'ili heretics (who, btw, didn't have that much loot) and he wouldn't have given allegiance to the Khilafah (which had no physical way to enforce their authority over Khorasan/Hind). As for Muhammad Ghauri, he literally got assassinated whilst making dua to Allah, and when it comes to Qutubuddin Aibek, he was raised by a family of Qadhis, his religious zeal is also made apparent by the Masjid in Delhi he built over the ruins of a Hindu temple (Qutb Minar Complex).

 

[M. Sarmad]

We are not talking about british census of whole indian , I already explained why these figures are not true in regard to yousufzai .

Secondly there is no prove ghiljis are turkic. No historical strong evidence to prove it. Pashto changes as you go from north to south , the dialects might vary which even vary from tribe to tribe even the food can but the interesting part is they have more in common that is culture , secondly language and thirdly code of coduct "pashtunwali". The code will remain same in the north and in the south ,so does the language and culture.

Even if we accept your claim that British did not count Pathans properly (a baseless claim though), how can you say that the Yusufzais were undercounted but the Khataks were not?. So, your argument is not valid

As for the Turkic origins of Khiljis, that theory is widely accepted among scholars.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Even if we accept your claim that British did not count Pathans properly (a baseless claim though), how can you say that the Yusufzais were undercounted but the Khataks were not?. So, your argument is not valid

The problem is you want to start with single English source and finish with the same one because English figures are official figures for you even though when most of these lands were autonomous. For you English figures are reliable because there are no other figures. By that logic best of luck .

I gave the reasons why the figures regarding the yousufzais are not true because the khattak dominated areas nowshehra , kohat , Karak etc were directly under british influence while all the yousufzai land were not . For me English numbers are not valid ? for you my argument is not valid which. Sums things up very well Does not change the reality both tribes are still living in the those same areas. Study the current geography and demographics these questions will be answered.

[/QUOTE]As for the Turkic origins of Khiljis, that theory is widely accepted among scholars.[/QUOTE]

Not true, this theory is not widely accepted, its the opinion of very few. And the most important thing as you mentioned its a theory like all other theories about the different origins of ghiljis or pashtuns and is not supported by any evidence, but you are accepting it, based on which evidences and grounds? Sounds like you have already made up your mind.