The Myth of Pashtuns never been ruled and reality check for Afghans

[Zarrar Alvi]

Annihilations of Afghans at the hands of Punjabi fighter Ranjeet sing . The most significant encounters between the Sarkar Khalsaji and the Afghans were fought in 1813, 1823, 1834 and in 1837. In 1813, Ranjit Singh's general Dewan Mokham Chand led the Sikh forces against the Afghan forces of Shah Mahmud who were led by Dost Mohammad Khan. Following this encounter, the Afghans lost their stronghold at Attock. Subsequently, the Pothohar plateau, the Sindh Sagar Doab and Kashmir came under Sikh rule. In 1823, Ranjit Singh defeated a large army of Yusufzai tribesmen north of the Kabul River , while the presence of his Sikh General, Hari Singh Nalwa prevented the entire Afghan army from crossing this river and going to the aid of the Yusafzais at Nowshera. This defeat led to the gradual loss of Afghan power in Kandhar , jalalabad and Paktika. In 1834, when the forces of the Sarkar Khalsaji marched into Peshawar, the ruling Barakzais Afghans scared of Ranjeet sing army retreated without offering a fight. In April 1837, the real power of Maharaja Ranjit Singh came to the fore when his commander-in-chief, Hari Singh Nalwa, kept the entire army of Amir Dost Mohammad Khan Afghan at bay, with a handful of forces till reinforcements arrived from Lahore over a month after they were requisitioned.The Battle of Jamrud in 1837 became the last confrontation between the Sikhs and the Afghans. Hari Singh Nalwa was killed while the Afghans retreated to Kabul to deal with the Persian invasion where they were defeated by persians currently known as Farsi Afghans (Current rulers and allies of NATO) on its western border in Herat and internal fighting between various princes. Khalsa Sarkar Wazir Jawahar Singh nominated Sardar Gurmukh Singh Lamba as political-cum-military adviser to safeguard the gains of Khalsa Sarkar and that is why Ranjeet sing is known as rulers of Afghan pashtuns the only ruler who annihilated Afghans not Russian or britain achieved that feet

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

@Afghan Lawyer @DESERT FIGHTER @Death Knight @Indian Gurkha @SIKANDER KHAN

 

[Zaalim]

Why are you starting trouble?

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

Why are you starting trouble?

trouble? one should know about his history dude they always blame punjab for everything these afghani pushtoons but their real daddy was ranjeet sing not us muslim punjabis

 

[Zaalim]

trouble? one should know about his history dude they always blame punjab for everything these afghani pushtoons but their real daddy was ranjeet sing not us muslim punjabis

Ranjit ki tera abba lagda si?

He was no good either.

 

[Zarrar Alvi]

Ranjit ki tera abba lagda si?

He was no good either.

personal na ho me na tujhe gali di hai kya histroy btai hai how ranjeet ruled afghani pushtoons learn how to debate instead of using you parents language

 

[That Guy]

People tend to get their facts confused. Afghans have been conquered and ruled many many times, it's pretty much a fact of life for them. The problem is that the conqueror has a hard time keeping control of the conquered Afghan land, as creating insurgencies to fight the rulers is pretty much a national pastime for the Afghans, in particular, Pashtun tribes. They reject any rule over their tribes, even if the ruler is Afghan. The tribal mind set is deeply ingrained in Afghan society, and the rural tribal population whom make up a majority of the country, will not accept anything less than the ruler of Afghanistan being from their tribe, or an allied tribe. As such, a unified Afghanistan is as much of a myth as Afghanistan being unconquerable.

Of course, I've overly simplified the situation, but the over all assessment I think is sound.

 

[hunter_hunted]

Hahahah 2 chuche lard parde

 

[Samandri]

Annihilations of Afghans at the hands of Punjabi fighter Ranjeet sing . The most significant encounters between the Sarkar Khalsaji and the Afghans were fought in 1813, 1823, 1834 and in 1837. In 1813, Ranjit Singh's general Dewan Mokham Chand led the Sikh forces against the Afghan forces of Shah Mahmud who were led by Dost Mohammad Khan. Following this encounter, the Afghans lost their stronghold at Attock. Subsequently, the Pothohar plateau, the Sindh Sagar Doab and Kashmir came under Sikh rule. In 1823, Ranjit Singh defeated a large army of Yusufzai tribesmen north of the Kabul River , while the presence of his Sikh General, Hari Singh Nalwa prevented the entire Afghan army from crossing this river and going to the aid of the Yusafzais at Nowshera. This defeat led to the gradual loss of Afghan power in Kandhar , jalalabad and Paktika. In 1834, when the forces of the Sarkar Khalsaji marched into Peshawar, the ruling Barakzais Afghans scared of Ranjeet sing army retreated without offering a fight. In April 1837, the real power of Maharaja Ranjit Singh came to the fore when his commander-in-chief, Hari Singh Nalwa, kept the entire army of Amir Dost Mohammad Khan Afghan at bay, with a handful of forces till reinforcements arrived from Lahore over a month after they were requisitioned.The Battle of Jamrud in 1837 became the last confrontation between the Sikhs and the Afghans. Hari Singh Nalwa was killed while the Afghans retreated to Kabul to deal with the Persian invasion where they were defeated by persians currently known as Farsi Afghans (Current rulers and allies of NATO) on its western border in Herat and internal fighting between various princes. Khalsa Sarkar Wazir Jawahar Singh nominated Sardar Gurmukh Singh Lamba as political-cum-military adviser to safeguard the gains of Khalsa Sarkar and that is why Ranjeet sing is known as rulers of Afghan pashtuns the only ruler who annihilated Afghans not Russian or britain achieved that feet

Its indeed a wrong statement to say that Pashtuns have never been conquered, defeated or ruled by others.........their most awesome feature was not superhuman strength as you people assume but resilience and love for independence, challenging the powerful invaders against all odds and resisting them. This fact was also realized by your Sikh kinsmen when they captured areas of KPK or NWFP, they had to face resistance and trouble in pashtun areas. After defeat of hari singh nalwa at jamrud, Sikhs had to distribute and share power with local chieftains.

Its not Sikhs who "conquered" and "subdued" pashtuns of KPK, the credit goes to long rule of British and its successor Pakistan. According to "enemy of my enemy is my friend concept", pashtuns of KPK developed good relations with British. Sikhs were straight forward enemies, British were not. In Sikh-Pashtun hostility, British scored the goal and conquered both. The same Pashtuns of KPK, easily and happily became part of successor state of British india in 1947..................................they accepted a farangi rule over their watan in 1848 after demise of sikh rule, its opposite to what pashtuns have behaved through out history

Afghan-pashtun are free-spirited , have their own country no matter how much poor it is. There will always be resistance from them, from any corner in any shape, against foreign invader......same can not be said about pakistani pashtuns of kpk, they were conquered and defeated by sikhs, were smoothly ruled by british for 90 years and are now "pakistanis" rather than afghans who dont want to join afghanistan.

 

[Samandri]

personal na ho me na tujhe gali di hai kya histroy btai hai how ranjeet ruled afghani pushtoons learn how to debate instead of using you parents language

Farty, Ranjeet singh didnt establish rule over Afghan-pashtuns of today but on your pakistani pathans of peshawer, kohat, bannu and Di Khan.....make up your mind, you want to bash Afghan-pashtuns or pak-pathanis aka khochas?

That being said, Sikhs couldnt enforce their laws on pakhtukhwa e.g banning azaan, ban on slaughtering cows etc......on the other hand, they ruled over their punjabi musalman kinsmen to their heart content..... i was reading in "history of punjab" by lateef (punjabi muslim author), that food of punjabi muslims became vegetarian due to sikh rule.....

 

[punit]

Its indeed a wrong statement to say that Pashtuns have never been conquered, defeated or ruled by others.........their most awesome feature was not superhuman strength as you people assume but resilience and love for independence, challenging the powerful invaders against all odds and resisting them. This fact was also realized by your Sikh kinsmen when they captured areas of KPK or NWFP, they had to face resistance and trouble in pashtun areas. After defeat of hari singh nalwa at jamrud, Sikhs had to distribute and share power with local chieftains.

Its not Sikhs who "conquered" and "subdued" pashtuns of KPK, the credit goes to long rule of British and its successor Pakistan. According to "enemy of my enemy is my friend concept", pashtuns of KPK developed good relations with British. Sikhs were straight forward enemies, British were not. In Sikh-Pashtun hostility, British scored the goal and conquered both. The same Pashtuns of KPK, easily and happily became part of successor state of British india in 1947..................................they accepted a farangi rule over their watan in 1848 after demise of sikh rule, its opposite to what pashtuns have behaved through out history

Afghan-pashtun are free-spirited , have their own country no matter how much poor it is. There will always be resistance from them, from any corner in any shape, against foreign invader......same can not be said about pakistani pashtuns of kpk, they were conquered and defeated by sikhs, were smoothly ruled by british for 90 years and are now "pakistanis" rather than afghans who dont want to join afghanistan.

but then what will be the future of Afghanistan. Sometimes overdose of freedom is dangerous !

 

[Samandri]

but then what will be the future of Afghanistan. Sometimes overdose of freedom is dangerous !

overdoses of freedom? every nation of the world loves freedom, its not in quantity or doses..........

Future of afghanistan will be decided by afghans, who want better for their country and want to progress beyond tribalism and step in 21st century on par with other nations. If Taliban prevailed, then their future is in ruins.

 

[punit]

overdoses of freedom? every nation of the world loves freedom, its not in quantity or doses..........

Future of afghanistan will be decided by afghans, who want better for their country and want to progress beyond tribalism and step in 21st century on par with other nations. If Taliban prevailed, then their future is in ruins.

BY Overdose means the same tribal mindset in which u can not accept the ruler from different tribe.

 

[xyxmt]

Alexander conquered Afghanistan but he was defeated in Pakistan. About until 100 years ago no one had any interest in Afghanistan, armies conquered afghanistan or bribed afghan tribes to come to India, thats where the wealth was. why would anyone spend energies on Afghanistan, to collect stones?

 

[Samandri]

Every nation goes through rise and fall. In 18th century Pashtuns emerged as powerful players but 19th century was period of their fall and failures, while Sikhs emerged as new power who challenged the predations of Pashtuns into Punjab, then farangis appeared and taught lessons to every one. The thread starter, @Zarrar Alvi (the one copy pasting from wiki) should study history more deeply, It was Sikh empire vs Durrani empire. Sikhs didnt share power and authority with their punjabi muslaman subjects, Afghans did the same when they were masters of punjab. It were sikhs, not punjabi muslaman, who were waging guerrilla war against Afghan rulers of punjab. Punjabi musalman were not even in position to challenge either sikhs or afghans, they were powerless and weak spectators. I would place not place sikhs on the same level and category as punjabi-muslims, rulers and ruled can not be on same level.