Why do Pashtuns give their daughters to non-pashtuns?

[gadoonwal]

pashtuns do,nt give their daughters to others like punjabis etc.
It is one specail area where they do this and you know that well.
There are hundereds of thousands baluchi women married to sindhis,mahajars and punjabis.You should lookafter them and do,nt worry about pashtuns.

[M17ArnoBaloch]

Although I don't agree at all with some of the closeness being attributed between Punjabi's or South Asians and Pashtoons in this thread, I should point out that Punjab is a conglomeration of people that simply just happenned to live in Punjab hence the name Punjabi. However, the overwhelming majority of said conglomeration of people are linked to people of Indic origins. So yes, there are different ethnicities that comprise Punjab, but they were overwhelmingly of related Indic origin and not as foreign to one another as say a Pashtoon and a Gujarti - hence, Punjabi's have the common phenotype they do today.

I should also mention that the Pashtoons origins are disputed and probably an admixture of indigenous people, likely some Semitic mixing, etc. depending on the tribe and area. If you go across the different Pashtoon tribes you see differences in phenotype and I think why some people think all Pashtoons look a particular way is that they have only really been exposed to one type of tribe. However, I think lumping Pashtoons, Tajiks, Baloch, etc. into one large super-class of origin does a disservice to the unique identity each has amassed and especially considering their unique and disputed origins (specifically on the end of Pashtoons). Further, I think for the layman, it too closely associates a Pashtoon with Persia or vice versa, and any relationship they ever could have had is way too attenuated at this point.

If you look just at the Baloch, they claim from Amir Hamza (ra), they claim ancestry from Aleppo, they claim Kurdish blood relations, while others believe all, not some are of Indic origin. Pashtoons, in a similar fashion, claim to be a descendent from Khalid bin Waleed (ra), Qais Abdur Rashid, from Bani Israel, and others yet claim they are descended from Turks, Scythians, and yet others even believe some tribes of the Pashtoon are of Greek origin. What is the truth? Probably a mix thereof which probably accounts for the range of phenotypes we have but also, likely because all of the Pashtoons have adopted a similar custom, tradition, and values, have inter-mixed amongst like minded peoples and have created the recurring physical characteristics we see in most Pashtoons today.

True, your post articulates precision. Although I consent with your send let me simplify things a bit more minimally. You said Punjab is a conglomeration of people that plainly just happened to live in Punjab hence the name Punjabi, this is ineffectually not true. The sheer exemplar would be taken for example, a pashtun having roamed from Afghanistan and dwelling punjab, would not be called a punjabi in the coming few years just because he happens to subsist in that unambiguous area. He would be referred as "Pashtun" and the stare will mostly articulate the veracity. It is somewhat true that not all Punjabis have the matching genesis but it's habitually true. I will put forth another example in this definite watch. If you go back a hundred years to India when the intact place was once called "india", you will see Punjab being formerly a province of "india" and only Indians residing Punjab. Non Indians such as pashtuns or baloch or farsi didn’t inhabit the Indian land. Punjab is an indian land, it has always been an indian land and of course whoever precisely lived there was an indian. How could they not be Indian? they have to, you can't christen them afghans or somewhat else. They were indians who inhabited Punjab and the inhibiters were both unconstrained Punjabis and Indians. After the split of Pakistan and India, Punjab was carved in half. The muslim punjabis created their nation "Pakistan" while the rest of Hindu Punjabis and Indians kept the word India not shifting it. But the origins were not carved, they remained Indians but under a new title "Pakistan".

I agree however that the history of Pashtuns is dubious and there are many claims as to where the pashtuns arise from, for example some pashtuns trace themselves to Bani Israel, having analogous customs and attire and excerpting some chronological reference. However there are some other pashtuns that like to call themselves offspring of greeks or the blatantly abused word Aryans. Even though their history is disputed there is still span for a paradigm that I will be screening you. There are something called “iranid” races. Iranid races initially define the races being original to Iran or Persia. These iranid races have been recorded and traced to have Iranian blood or faction of people that later mixed and formed tribes and disputed themselves. For example iranid races include Pashtuns, Baloch, Kurds, Tajiks, Persians, etc. These races all share the common phenotype and blood being Iranian in. These ethnic groups of people are iranid (being original to iran or additionally stretching out their origins from the middle east). Their language is also classified as iranid languages. Their people look spotlessly similar all together and share common center of origin and facial aesthetics. However, distant from all that, we have something else called the "indic" races. The indic races are those races that are original to India (Ind, Indic) and are originally Indians. These races include Panjabis, Rajputs, etc and other Indian races that incorporate the Indian mores. These people have no relation to the iranian races. Nor are they related to each other. The only way they could be related is through the common word of "mixing".

Yes you are right. The baloch mainly claim ancestory from Alleppo, being an offshoot from the Kurds. Because research has told that they allocate blood, facial composition, being remarkably similar, having the same literal culture and way of life. Others allege that Baloch are arabs, but this is fictitious as baloch are classified "medes" and we know that arabs are "semetic" not "medes". Kurdish are medes as well and their record also seems to be very parallel. Both resist for sovereignty. Regarding pashtuns, I have heard discussions where people have traced Pashtuns to be of indic origin. And a horde of other hogwash as well. I have heard many tales and many similar examples. But that all being said and referring back to Punjab, it is not a identify to given to a person living in Punjab but it is a group of indic people who live in that specific place having similar texture and permutation of a faction of indic ethnicities.

[M17ArnoBaloch]

http://www.pashtunforums.com/hujra-1...n-hallo-38524/

nothing personal. just for jokes

[rednwhite99]

sindhi samples are close to pashtuns, just because they are sindhi/baloch mixed samples. I have heard from somewhere that 50% of Sindhis are mixed with Baloch. Today yes Baloch and Sindhis have become almost one, because of intermarriages. Traditionally Sindhis were hindus and were actually close to Rajastanis, Gujarati etc... Looks wise, sindhis also resemble baloch more, simply because they are mixed with them

Also one thing I have to say, Punjabis are not just darker then pashtuns, but their facial features are different and more (indian) looking. Of course there are some pashtuns/tajiks/baloch who also have those features, but majority of them do not. There is a over all difference in how Iranid people look and how Indic people look, punjabis are overwhelmingly Indian looking not Iranid

In my university like I said there were lots of Punjabi and even many Afghans mostly from Tajik background, but also some pashtuns and I can tell you, people could easily tell a difference between Punjabis and Afghans, there is no question about this

ok man good info but wrong in terms of ur dna analysis
and as i earlier showed u a video of the balochs welcoming shehzad roy ..how did u find balochs over there .. i still remember ur words that the chaudhries and the higher class punjabis are different as compared to lower class right so why u taking looks of balochs by looking at only their sardars ,,why dont u have a look at the people living there ,,there are plenty of pics n videos but its just that we muslims think we are superior if we are fair but i think karachi u shud either stay with ur dna studies or with ur personal opinions...what kind of answer is this that sindhis look like balochis just because they mixed and balochs look dark because they are mixed with sindhis lolz,, i think sindhis overall look better than balochs even though balochs are classified as iranic group ,i dont find anything iranic in them(except for pashtuns who look iranic on average) and why dont u just replace the drress of a baloch with rajastani and then make a comparison . to be honest if u have any hatred towards one ethnic group it doesnt mean that u should start lying.
As for punjabis different groups look different as khattaks are the most darkest(the reason that u might give me is because they mixed with hindkos) but momand are the most iranic in my opinion..masali is a punjabi as is a jatt but both look different ,,i think jatts were found to have more europeon as compared to any other ethnic group..if i m mistaken then u can correct with ur dna table plz

[rednwhite99]

Yup because Tajiks resemble Indians the most both in skin color and facial features.

r tajiks like balochs who are iranic but dark like indians ..coz the things that i have heard abt tajiks are pretty opposite as alot of people say that tajiks are the most beuatiful group in afghanistan ..some might look dark but on average are they really like tat u have mentioned or is it just that u hate tajiks

[M17ArnoBaloch]

r tajiks like balochs who are iranic but dark like indians ..coz the things that i have heard abt tajiks are pretty opposite as alot of people say that tajiks are the most beuatiful group in afghanistan ..some might look dark but on average are they really like tat u have mentioned or is it just that u hate tajiks

says the guy who has never been to balochistan

says the guy who has not seen a single baloch from balochistan

you have not seen a single baloch in balochistan. all you've seen is a horde of miscellaneous admixture of factions like sindhi, seraiki, and mekrani.
Buy a pen and a notebook. Go to Balochistan, do research on the baloch and look at yourself. Then come here. Sitting in Punjab, haven’t even seen a baloch, haven’t even been there and prejudicing the baloch. No one likes your personal self-made favoritism.

Troll

Tajiks are not dark at all. Tajiks in tajikistan are way different than tajiks in afghanistan. tajiks in afghanistan are somewhat mixed with pakhtuns and such but in tajikistan it's not the similar case. They are not dark at all overall. They are not dark in afghanistan nor are they dark in tajikistan.

I would say that he hates tajiks. on average tajiks dont look like what he showed you. It's his personal bias.

[Karachi]

^ I agree. Here in Canada I have mostly met Dari speaking Afghans and they dont look Indian on average, I would say the closes they look is actually to persians/iranians, at least in my experience

[Pukhtoon]

True, your post articulates precision. Although I consent with your send let me simplify things a bit more minimally. You said Punjab is a conglomeration of people that plainly just happened to live in Punjab hence the name Punjabi, this is ineffectually not true. The sheer exemplar would be taken for example, a pashtun having roamed from Afghanistan and dwelling punjab, would not be called a punjabi in the coming few years just because he happens to subsist in that unambiguous area. He would be referred as "Pashtun" and the stare will mostly articulate the veracity. It is somewhat true that not all Punjabis have the matching genesis but it's habitually true. I will put forth another example in this definite watch. If you go back a hundred years to India when the intact place was once called "india", you will see Punjab being formerly a province of "india" and only Indians residing Punjab. Non Indians such as pashtuns or baloch or farsi didn’t inhabit the Indian land. Punjab is an indian land, it has always been an indian land and of course whoever precisely lived there was an indian. How could they not be Indian? they have to, you can't christen them afghans or somewhat else. They were indians who inhabited Punjab and the inhibiters were both unconstrained Punjabis and Indians. After the split of Pakistan and India, Punjab was carved in half. The muslim punjabis created their nation "Pakistan" while the rest of Hindu Punjabis and Indians kept the word India not shifting it. But the origins were not carved, they remained Indians but under a new title "Pakistan".

I agree however that the history of Pashtuns is dubious and there are many claims as to where the pashtuns arise from, for example some pashtuns trace themselves to Bani Israel, having analogous customs and attire and excerpting some chronological reference. However there are some other pashtuns that like to call themselves offspring of greeks or the blatantly abused word Aryans. Even though their history is disputed there is still span for a paradigm that I will be screening you. There are something called “iranid” races. Iranid races initially define the races being original to Iran or Persia. These iranid races have been recorded and traced to have Iranian blood or faction of people that later mixed and formed tribes and disputed themselves. For example iranid races include Pashtuns, Baloch, Kurds, Tajiks, Persians, etc. These races all share the common phenotype and blood being Iranian in. These ethnic groups of people are iranid (being original to iran or additionally stretching out their origins from the middle east). Their language is also classified as iranid languages. Their people look spotlessly similar all together and share common center of origin and facial aesthetics. However, distant from all that, we have something else called the "indic" races. The indic races are those races that are original to India (Ind, Indic) and are originally Indians. These races include Panjabis, Rajputs, etc and other Indian races that incorporate the Indian mores. These people have no relation to the iranian races. Nor are they related to each other. The only way they could be related is through the common word of "mixing".

Yes you are right. The baloch mainly claim ancestory from Alleppo, being an offshoot from the Kurds. Because research has told that they allocate blood, facial composition, being remarkably similar, having the same literal culture and way of life. Others allege that Baloch are arabs, but this is fictitious as baloch are classified "medes" and we know that arabs are "semetic" not "medes". Kurdish are medes as well and their record also seems to be very parallel. Both resist for sovereignty. Regarding pashtuns, I have heard discussions where people have traced Pashtuns to be of indic origin. And a horde of other hogwash as well. I have heard many tales and many similar examples. But that all being said and referring back to Punjab, it is not a identify to given to a person living in Punjab but it is a group of indic people who live in that specific place having similar texture and permutation of a faction of indic ethnicities.

Just a real quick reply - the Punjabi thing is inaccurate and more accurate in my original post. The inhabitants of Punjab are a conglomeration of different Indic peoples who themselves may have considered themselves distinct from each other, but get lumped together as one group like you are lumping together Baloch, Iranians, Tajiks, Pashtoons, etc. So they are a conglomeration of primarily different Indic races which they felt is unique but outside observers do not and lump them together similar to the way all Arabs are considered one race, or all inhabitants of Afghanistan one race etc. However, the name Punjab has not historically bee considered an ethnic group like a Pashtoon but rather denoted a people who lived near Punjab no matter what ethnic group, i.e., and the people who lived near the Five Waters, (Punj Aaab). That could of been even a non-Indic person who lived in Punjab long enough and got assimilated so it really is a conglomeration and could be even from non-Indic origins.

Some of them might be pure Indic, some not, but they have all since been assimilated. No different then the Brahui Baloch, who are of Indic origin but are considered full-fledged Baloch by everyone except for maybe the Baloch community and even then it's not that contentious an issue from what I understand. Similarly, the Pashtoons have absorbed a great many people as well who for some reason or another, they felt was a good group to mix with. With the Pashtoons, its likely that many of the branches who claim different ancestry and many Pashtoons will not consider certain others pure Pashtoon or "khaas" Pashtoon - I will not get into that debate as its not really beneficial and only causes dissension.

Also, your point about the Iranic races contradicts itself, seemingly anyways, because you mention Pashtoons unknown and or mixed origin from other then the Iranic stock so then why are we lumped together with them? Some may have some blood relationship many probably do not but even then its an admixture so it's still not accurate, just easier for different antrhopologists, ethnographers, et al. to put a label on people. Further, if the Baloch are not indigenous, why are they considered and Iranic race? If the Pashtoons are not indigenous, in whatever amount, why are they considered Iranic? Whaever origin story you believe, there is merit on both sides so why lump them together with one particular group and make one super-class of people? Why not call us all Bani-Adam? We all go back to one father anyways and slowly deviated over time and then people re-classified groups of people. So since after time, the "Iranid" people became so distinct from "Indic" people they classified them as a different races, so too, I believe, Pashtoons today and others, even if you believe they are primarily or in large part related to to an Iranic race (which I categorically do not believe) the connection is way too attenuated to consider them "Iranic" race.

[Kushan Prince]

r tajiks like balochs who are iranic but dark like indians ..coz the things that i have heard abt tajiks are pretty opposite as alot of people say that tajiks are the most beuatiful group in afghanistan ..some might look dark but on average are they really like tat u have mentioned or is it just that u hate tajiks

You're living in area sournded by Farsiwans then brcause NO one thinks Tajiks are the most beautiful people in Afghanistan. Infact they are a minority and tajiks themselves said during the soviet war said that pashtuns were described as "maghbool" and the "most beautiful" because of pashtuns having green eyes. No kidding. Heck even you're average nuristani looks ten times better then a Tajik.

[Kushan Prince]

^ I agree. Here in Canada I have mostly met Dari speaking Afghans and they dont look Indian on average, I would say the closes they look is actually to persians/iranians, at least in my experience

Are you sure that these Dari speakers you are meeting aren't actually pashtuns? A lot of Pashtuns speak Farsi too you know.

[Karachi]

Are you sure that these Dari speakers you are meeting aren't actually pashtuns? A lot of Pashtuns speak Farsi too you know.

it could be possible I am not sure, they usually spoke dari, so I am assuming they were tajik. But one thing is, they always looks iranian/iranid, never indian

[Karachi]

Just a real quick reply - the Punjabi thing is inaccurate and more accurate in my original post. The inhabitants of Punjab are a conglomeration of different Indic peoples who themselves may have considered themselves distinct from each other, but get lumped together as one group like you are lumping together Baloch, Iranians, Tajiks, Pashtoons, etc. So they are a conglomeration of primarily different Indic races which they felt is unique but outside observers do not and lump them together similar to the way all Arabs are considered one race, or all inhabitants of Afghanistan one race etc. However, the name Punjab has not historically bee considered an ethnic group like a Pashtoon but rather denoted a people who lived near Punjab no matter what ethnic group, i.e., and the people who lived near the Five Waters, (Punj Aaab). That could of been even a non-Indic person who lived in Punjab long enough and got assimilated so it really is a conglomeration and could be even from non-Indic origins.

Some of them might be pure Indic, some not, but they have all since been assimilated. No different then the Brahui Baloch, who are of Indic origin but are considered full-fledged Baloch by everyone except for maybe the Baloch community and even then it's not that contentious an issue from what I understand. Similarly, the Pashtoons have absorbed a great many people as well who for some reason or another, they felt was a good group to mix with. With the Pashtoons, its likely that many of the branches who claim different ancestry and many Pashtoons will not consider certain others pure Pashtoon or "khaas" Pashtoon - I will not get into that debate as its not really beneficial and only causes dissension.

Also, your point about the Iranic races contradicts itself, seemingly anyways, because you mention Pashtoons unknown and or mixed origin from other then the Iranic stock so then why are we lumped together with them? Some may have some blood relationship many probably do not but even then its an admixture so it's still not accurate, just easier for different antrhopologists, ethnographers, et al. to put a label on people. Further, if the Baloch are not indigenous, why are they considered and Iranic race? If the Pashtoons are not indigenous, in whatever amount, why are they considered Iranic? Whaever origin story you believe, there is merit on both sides so why lump them together with one particular group and make one super-class of people? Why not call us all Bani-Adam? We all go back to one father anyways and slowly deviated over time and then people re-classified groups of people. So since after time, the "Iranid" people became so distinct from "Indic" people they classified them as a different races, so too, I believe, Pashtoons today and others, even if you believe they are primarily or in large part related to to an Iranic race (which I categorically do not believe) the connection is way too attenuated to consider them "Iranic" race.

I think this applies to all of india to be honest not just punjab and the clans that are found in punjab like jatts, rajputs, mughals etc.. are actually found through out north india not just punjab. Generally all of these people despite their differences are all indic people

[Kushan Prince]

I think this applies to all of india to be honest not just punjab and the clans that are found in punjab like jatts, rajputs, mughals etc.. are actually found through out north india not just punjab. Generally all of these people despite their differences are all indic people

Exactly, all Indians are the same whether they like this or not. They belong to once race called the Dravadian race. I can't diffenerate beetween a North Indian or a South Indian most of the times.

[Pukhtoon]

For the sake of accuracy, I should mention that, I know this is a Pashtoon forum and sometimes people get a little too exaggerated about their own ethnic group and other races as well, but many of the pictures here denoting Tajiks are not really reflective of the ones in Afghanistan and a lot of them are people from Tajikistan, not Afghanistan. I know most people say they are all the same and maybe true historically, but if you read up on the history of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Tajikistan specifically, most of its inhabitants are Uzbek especially the ones near Afghanistan, not ethnic Tajiks. Because of their close proximity to Uzbeks, there has also been great mixing between the two which is why even a person who identifies as Tajik by blood, not by nationality, may have dissimilar features from the ones you find in Afghanistan.

Generally speaking, Tajik complexions run the same spectrum from dark to light as Pashtoons which is generally olive skinned but finding with tanned skin is not anything out of the ordinary especially depending on the region. The major difference I have noticed between Tajiks and Pashtoons in Afghanistan is Pashtoons, generally speaking, have a thinner face and Tajiks rounder. As to different color eyes, exotic features, etc., you see that amongst Pashtoons and Tajiks in similar frequency depending on the tribe/region. It's not uncommon to have these features in either race and it's not being genuine to say otherwise.

Further, one of the reasons Pashtoons take women from them among other things (like being a part of a pious family), is not because of their obsession with their culture or Farsi as some people like to make it, its because of looks. It's not the end of the world to say as much as they fit in with the historical perceptions of beauty in Afghanistan and so they marry them. You don't hear more mixing between Uzbeks and Hazaras and Pashtoons because they don't meet the same standard (amongst other reasons). It's also why (among many other reasons) why some people don't understand why a Pashtoon would marry a Punjabi because Punjabis/Indic people etc. don't really fit with what Pashtoons consider classically beautiful. I think this conception which almost everyone hear should know is also shared by non-Pashtoons including Indic peoples.

[Manzareh]

Mr.Bolochi don't sweat RevoloutionThroughTreason, the reason he's jealous of your hair is because he has a bold patch, its clear jealousy :]