The absolute history of Ghilijis

[M. Sarmad]

Bro, i am not inclined or affiliated with the mentioned tribes in any sort. Secondly i respect all the possibilities, Because each has its own pros and cons and i respect the arguments and figures that you provided. Because its quite possible that the demographics then were like this and it might have changed now and vice versa.

For me the most important question is not that khattaks are more in numbers or yusufzai. Although we have been discussing about it with our own set of arguments. You can absolutely be correct with figures. Or may be i am. Then what changes ? Nothing

But rather it does changes history if we want to identify where does all these tribes come from ? how they unified ? why they unified ? how they developed there language ? if they did why dont we have the old inscriptions of pashto? . Why are some pashtoon tribes being related turkic , while others are claimed to be related to iran and India etc etc etc.why did all of them changed their language and culture ? adopting a single defined code ? The convergence in the arguments is lacking with none providing strong evidence to back themselves or answer the above questions even . If you have Kindly share it .

Yes, it does not matter one bit that whether or not Khatak is the largest Pathan tribe of Pakistan. But the point is that when someone is not willing to accept even 'facts and figures' that go against his pre-conceived notions and ideas, how could you expect him to discuss objectively the history of races, racial categories and their origin, which essentially is a very complicated topic?.

Afghan is a demonym. But now it is being propagated as an ethnonym as a part of the 5GW deliberately confusing Pakistani Pashtuns with the historic use of term Afghan, which had been an ethnonym originally (used for Afghan race that was distinct from Pathans and Khiljis) that became a demonym over time. A new wider Pashtun/Afghan identity is being concocted (based on false historic claims) to undermine the integrity of Pakistani state. As a 'reaction' (arguably intended and being supported), Punjabi nationalism, a term/idea hitherto unknown to Punjabis, is finding acceptance among the largest ethnic group of Pakistan.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Yes, it does not matter one bit that whether or not Khatak is the largest Pathan tribe of Pakistan. But the point is that when someone is not willing to accept even 'facts and figures' that go against his pre-conceived notions and ideas, how could you expect him to discuss objectively the history of races, racial categories and their origin, which essentially is a very complicated topic?.

Afghan is a demonym. But now it is being propagated as an ethnonym as a part of the 5GW deliberately confusing Pakistani Pashtuns with the historic use of term Afghan, which had been an ethnonym originally (used for Afghan race that was distinct from Pathans and Khiljis) that became a demonym over time. A new wider Pashtun/Afghan identity is being concocted (based on false historic claims) to undermine the integrity of Pakistani state. As a 'reaction' (arguably intended and being supported), Punjabi nationalism, a term/idea hitherto unknown to Punjabis, is finding acceptance among the largest ethnic group of Pakistan.

You will find these answers in the poems of khushal khan khattak , ahmad shah abdali and later Dr. Allama iqbal directly. I will quote poem of allama iqbal and khushal khan.

Khushal khan says

"Da afghan pa nang me watarala toora
Nangiyalay da zamane khushal khattak yum"

Peace

 

[M. Sarmad]

You will find these answers in the poems of khushal khan khattak , ahmad shah abdali and later Dr. Allama iqbal directly.

Where is the 'answer', bro???

What is Khushhal Khan Khattak saying? Can you please translate it for those of us who do not speak Pakhto.

And ground realities have changed dramatically since Iqbal's times. There was no Pakistan back then. Nor was the concocted Afghan identity; an antithesis to Pakistani nationalism, being propagated by our enemies (and some clueless friends) as is being done today.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Where is the 'answer', bro???

And ground realities have changed dramatically since Iqbal's times. There was no Pakistan back then. Nor was the concocted Afghan identity; an antithesis to Pakistani nationalism, being propagated by our enemies (and some clueless friends) as it is being done today.

The answer is that khushal khan and iqbal both have refered to pashtuns as afghans. So what you are claiming about the differences is not true.

Translation is

"I have taken up the sword to defend the pride of the Afghan,
I am Khushal Khattak, the honorable man of the age."

 

[Hamza913]

The answer is that khushal khan and iqbal both have refered to pashtuns as afghans. So what you are claiming about the differences is not true.

Yeah you're right, as Khattak said, Pashtuns and Afghans are one and the same.

 

[M. Sarmad]

The answer is that khushal khan and iqbal both have refered to pashtuns as afghans. So what you are claiming about the differences is not true.

That wasn't even my point ..

Afghan is a demonym not an ethnonym.
I did not say no one used word Afghan to refer to Pathans.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

That wasn't even my point ..

Afghan is a demonym not an ethnonym.

I did not say no one used word Afghan to refer to Pathans.

"Afghan is a demonym. But now it is being propagated as an ethnonym as a part of the 5GW deliberately confusing Pakistani Pashtuns with the historic use of term Afghan, which had been an ethnonym originally (used for Afghan race that was distinct from Pathans and Khiljis) that became a demonym over time. A new wider Pashtun/Afghan identity is being concocted (based on false historic claims) to undermine the integrity of Pakistani state. As a 'reaction' (arguably intended and being supported), Punjabi nationalism, a term/idea hitherto unknown to Punjabis, is finding acceptance among the largest ethnic group of Pakistan".

Thats what i saw and replied.

 

[M. Sarmad]

"Afghan is a demonym. But now it is being propagated as an ethnonym as a part of the 5GW deliberately confusing Pakistani Pashtuns with the historic use of term Afghan, which had been an ethnonym originally (used for Afghan race that was distinct from Pathans and Khiljis) that became a demonym over time. A new wider Pashtun/Afghan identity is being concocted (based on false historic claims) to undermine the integrity of Pakistani state. As a 'reaction' (arguably intended and being supported), Punjabi nationalism, a term/idea hitherto unknown to Punjabis, is finding acceptance among the largest ethnic group of Pakistan".

Thats what i saw and replied.

Yes, Afghan race was distinct from Pathans, and Afghan had been an ethnonym originally. Already explained that in the previous posts.

And that was long before the times of Khushhal Khan Khattak and Iqbal, so, please explain how is your 'reply' related to my question/contention which is about the sense in which this word has been used historically (and the recent concoction)

 

[Gorgin Khan]

Yes, Afghan race was distinct from Pathans, and Afghan had been an ethnonym originally. Already explained that in the previous posts.

And that was long before the times of Khushhal Khan Khattak and Iqbal, so, please explain how is your 'reply' related to my question/contention which is about the sense in which this word has been used historically (and the recent concoction)

Kindly read your full post first. Would you explain how pathans were different from afghans. If pashtuns and afghans are same race you agree, then who are pathans ? Pathans are a different race and whom you are referring to as pathans?

Secondly A new wider Pashtun/Afghan identity is being concocted (based on false historic claims) to undermine the integrity of Pakistani state. This identity has existed as those poems mentioned. And its not against pakistani state because it existed long before. Thats a reality !

 

[M. Sarmad]

Kindly read your full post first. Would you explain how pathans were different from afghans. If pashtuns are afghans are same you agree, then who are pathans ? Pathans are a different race and whom you are referring to as pathans?

Secondly A new wider Pashtun/Afghan identity is being concocted (based on false historic claims) to undermine the integrity of Pakistani state. This identity has existed as those poems mentioned. And its not against pakistani state. Thats a reality !

The Afghans (ethnonym) and Ghilzais are Pathan (or Pashtun) by the virtue of their language, though not of Pathan origins.

Similarly, the Pathans (or Pashtuns) were Afghans (demonym) by the virtue of their geographical location, not origin/ethnicity.

And now a wider concocted Afghan/Pashtun identity is being propagated as an anti-thesis to Pakistani nationalism in order to undermine the integrity of Pakistani state.

 

[Crusher]

Yes, Afghan race was distinct from Pathans, and Afghan had been an ethnonym originally. Already explained that in the previous posts.

And that was long before the times of Khushhal Khan Khattak and Iqbal, so, please explain how is your 'reply' related to my question/contention which is about the sense in which this word has been used historically (and the recent concoction)

If "Afghan" ultimately is the modern corrupted form of ancient kamboja nickname of "Asvakan" (horsemen, horsebreeders), then it is ridiculous to think that "Afghan" was ever a "race" in history. Asvakan-->Afghan was nothing more than what we will call today in punjabi language "Ghoray wal", and the land where these "Ghoray wal" were found predominantly was called the land of "Ghoray wal".

I believe the word "Pathan" has something to do with ancient "Pakhta" tribe mentioned in the Rigveda of hindus inhabiting the lands where krumu (kurram) river flowed, essentially the central parts of former FATA areas around Kurram agency so you are right that Afridis, Khattaks and other tribes living around Kurram agency are likely the oldest inhabitants of those lands and possibly partially descended from Rigvedic Pakhta tribe.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

"I believe the word "Pathan" has something to do with ancient "Pakhta" tribe mentioned in the Rigveda of hindus inhabiting the lands where krumu (kurram) river flowed, essentially the central parts of former FATA areas around Kurram agency so you are right that Afridis, Khattaks and other tribes living around Kurram agency are likely the oldest inhabitants of those lands and possibly partially descended from Rigvedic Pakhta tribe."

If they are pathans and the rest are pashtuns or afghans. Then i am sorry none of these tribes belongs to ghilzai confederacy which are being labeled as outsiders or turkic as per you claims. These are all haoxes and theories which you guys have believed as facts without proper knowledge or research.

And what you believe must have a arguments with historical backup and evidences. Which you do not have.

 

[M. Sarmad]

If "Afghan" ultimately is the modern corrupted form of ancient kamboja nickname of "Asvakan" (horsemen, horsebreeders), then it is ridiculous to think that "Afghan" was ever a "race" in history. Asvakan-->Afghan was nothing more than what we will call today in punjabi language "Ghoray wal", and the land where these "Ghoray wal" were found predominantly was called the land of "Ghoray wal".

I believe the word "Pathan" has something to do with ancient "Pakhta" tribe mentioned in the Rigveda of hindus inhabiting the lands where krumu (kurram) river flowed, essentially the central parts of former FATA areas around Kurram agency so you are right that Afridis, Khattaks and other tribes living around Kurram agency are likely the oldest inhabitants of those lands and possibly partially descended from Rigvedic Pakhta tribe.

You are right. The concept of ethnicity contrasts with that of race. I used word 'race' only to make my point clear. 'Afghan' denoted an ethnicity at the time when they first interacted with the fugitive Gandhari Pathans in the region of Kandahar around fifth or sixth century. The origins of Afghan people (and the word itself) are quite obscure. The Khiljis of the thirteenth century did not identify themselves as Afghans. The usage and meaning of word Afghan has varied over time. Presently, 'Afghan' only means a citizen of the nation state of Afghanistan.

As for Pakhta or Pactyans being the ancestors of modern Pakistani Pathans, that is the most plausible theory I have come across so far.

 

[Crusher]

"I believe the word "Pathan" has something to do with ancient "Pakhta" tribe mentioned in the Rigveda of hindus inhabiting the lands where krumu (kurram) river flowed, essentially the central parts of former FATA areas around Kurram agency so you are right that Afridis, Khattaks and other tribes living around Kurram agency are likely the oldest inhabitants of those lands and possibly partially descended from Rigvedic Pakhta tribe."

If they are pathans and the rest are pashtuns or afghans. Then i am sorry none of these tribes belongs to ghilzai confederacy which are being labeled as outsiders or turkic as per you claims. These are all haoxes and theories which you guys have believed as facts without proper knowledge or research.

And what you believe must have a arguments with historical backup and evidences. Which you do not have.

The original Asvakan/Afghan were Kamboja people which were neighbors of Gandhara people. There were no clear boundaries between Kamboja and Gandhara territories. The whole area of Kambojas was called the land of Asvakans, Pathan/Paktha/Pactyans must have been an ally of Kambojas and hence they also came under the umbrella nickname "Asvakan/Afghan" due to similar mode of economy revolving around breeding horses. This world has always revolved around economy and still revolves around economy, economy is the reason for alliances and wars since the human civilizations have existed.

If anyone is true Asvakan/Afghan in region of modern KPK/East Afghanistan, it has to be Yusufzai (Aspasioi sub-tribe of Kambjoa Asvakans). So Yusufzais are most likey the only remanent tribe in the region which can claim to have an unbroken Asvakan/Afghan lineage from Kamboja times that predates even the invasion of Alexander of Peshawar and Kabul valleys.

 

[Gorgin Khan]

The Afghans (ethnonym) and Ghilzais are Pathan (or Pashtun) by the virtue of their language, though not of Pathan origins.

Similarly, the Pathans (or Pashtuns) were Afghans (demonym) by the virtue of their geographical location, not origin/ethnicity.

And now a wider concocted Afghan/Pashtun identity is being propagated as an anti-thesis to Pakistani nationalism in order to undermine the integrity of Pakistani state.

If all of them are together by virtue of their language . How did pashto originated ? what made it so dominent? Why it was adopted ? Why some adopted and some not. why are their no ancient pashto inscriptions in any form ?who are the people who spoke and developed this language. Infact the oldest one pata khazana although 1000 years is controversial? There is no evidences regarding these differences in history you mention and you are presenting assumptions , theories and claims of different authors as facts. There is not a single piece of evidence to back what you are claiming.

The original Asvakan/Afghan were Kamboja people which were neighbors of Gandhara people. There were no clear boundaries between Kamboja and Gandhara territories. The whole area of Kambojas was called the land of Asvakans, Pathan/Paktha/Pactyans must have been an ally of Kambojas and hence they also came under the umbrella nickname "Asvakan/Afghan" due to similar mode of economy revolving around breeding horses. This world has always revolved around economy and still revolves around economy, economy is the reason for alliances and wars since the human civilizations have existed.

If anyone is true Asvakan/Afghan in region of modern KPK/East Afghanistan, it has to be Yusufzai (Aspasioi sub-tribe of Kambjoa Asvakans). So Yusufzais are most likey the only remanent tribe in the region which can claim to have an unbroken Asvakan/Afghan lineage from Kamboja times that predates even the invasion of Alexander of Peshawar and Kabul valleys.

"If anyone is true" Sums it up well. Its just assumptions and claims not facts. There are not ifs and buts in facts.