Why are Khorasani nationalists claiming that Ahmad Zahir is a Khorasani legend?

[Khostai]

Exactly, those khorosani nationalist in the west is so blinded by the hatred toward Pashtuns, that they have forgotten the ethnic conflict in the north. The different parties is literally shooting each other in a real ethnic war up in the north. At least the conflict with Pashtuns for the most part is just verbal and indirect, while up north especially between Uzbek and Tajik it is directly.

Tell me about it, and I think if they split Afghanistan in to North and South. The North will be like what now south Sudan is. Infested withh ethnic conflict and hate, and there is actualy a civil war going on.....Quite sad becuase South Sudan also has acces to the oil and could become really rich.

[Kushan Prince]

It's because tajiks have absolutely NO history in Afghanistan at all therefore by making these kind of fabricated claims, it can give them a sense of false pride to ramp up their ego. Just look at wikipedia, and how they deliberately edit afghan provinces and claim every part is "tajik dominated." Just look at their own "tajik people" page, its so poorly edited with hardly any sources that half the stuff written there due to their own imagination.

How can anyone believe this crap?

Afghanistan boasts the largest Tajik population, mostly Sunni Muslims. Tajiks are considered oldest inhabitants of Afghanistan[citation needed] with most of them being settled villagers or farmers (dehqan) living in the cold parts of Central Asia. Tajiks comprise of over one-quarter of the Afghanistan's population and 79% of Tajikistan, they are the second largest group in the country. Dating from the 4th century[citation needed], historical evidence strongly supports[citation needed] their being one of the most ancient of the surviving Central Asian people groups.[citation needed] Over the Centuries Tajiks had great influence[citation needed] over the language and culture of people residing in Afghanistan and South Asia[citation needed] as well as the architecture of the region.[citation needed] This is still evident today as 80% of Afghanistan's population can understand the Dari or Parsi[citation needed] Language. The Mughals official court language was Persian Dari[citation needed] which shows the influence of Dari or Persian language in the sub-continent. The Dari or Persian engravings can still be seen in the Mosques, Tombs and Palaces in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajik_people

See what i mean?

Now as for mr. Zahir, my grandfather had ties to his family according to my father because he reportedly belonged to the same tribe us as. He even held a private concert for my family at a mela back in our village back in the day. It's true that he was a farsi singer but his ethnicity was Pasthun and he always bragged about being one. To tajiks, anybody who speaks farsi is considered a "farsiwan" or "tajik" which is NOT true at all.

[کیش]

It's because tajiks have absolutely NO history in Afghanistan therefore by making these kind of fabricated claims, it can give them a sense of false pride to ramp up their ego. Just look at wikipedia, and how they deliberately edit afghan provinces and claim every part is "tajik dominated." Just look at their own "tajik people" page, its so poorly edited with hardly any sources that half the stuff written there due to their own imagination.

How can anyone believe this crap?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajik_people

See what i mean?

Now as for mr. Zahir, my grandfather had ties to his family according to my father because he reportedly belonged to the same tribe us as. He even held a private concert for my family at a mela back in our village back in the day. It's true that he was a farsi singer but his ethnicity was Pasthun and he always bragged about being one. To tajiks, anybody who speaks farsi is considered a "farsiwan" or "tajik" which is NOT true at all.

but you also spread that Pashtuns are also an Iranic people speaking that language. when it is known that Tajiks/Persians are the biggest trolls in history, and could have made that up in the past. That is how people change history, and it's been done a lot.

[Herat]

If people were reasonable to that extent, why would they want to partition to begin with. What you claim is illogical, the whole reason people want to divide Afghanistan is because of unreasonable power hungry people, but then you for some odd reason expect them to be reasonable when it comes to division...

No one want to give Herat and Kabul to others to begin with. That is also what the current fighting is all about. Every ethnicity want Kabul, no one cares about Kandahar or Panshir etc. So how do you expect them to give each other Kabul, Herat, Mazar'e sharif etc. At least now they have influence over each other, which makes them more or less share it. When division comes in, the one who got it, will have all of it. You can have million soldiers to keep things in control, but the different parties would still wont give an inch of those territories to the opposition.

When the country is divided in Pashtunistan and khorosan. The population and the land mass in Khorosan will be reduced, which means a smaller amount of people is required to have a political power. Those minority who today haven't any political power will all of sudden become a leading party. That includes Pashtun in the north. Uzbek, Hazara and Tajiks will be competing on power. Now everyone knows that these ethnicities doesn't have a friendly tendency with each other. The same ethnic conflict will continue, if not worse because the majority Pashtuns will no longer be able to mediates between them.

The conflict between Uzbek and Tajik is especially widely know. And they compete against each other for the control of the north today. Imagine now a situation where you force Hazaras to join the competition for the control of ''khorosan''. You can believe me or not, but the facts is pretty clear that the fighting will continue in Khorosan if division is made. The competion in the north is already widely spread and division will just fuel it further.

I understand what I think you are alluding to and in fact, believe it or not, I am not particularly fond of any of the mostly evil, criminal Tajik/Uzbek/Hazara warlords and concede that many Tajik politicians (especially the ones in the current Afghan government) are frankly wastes of meat (much of their opportunistic, short-sighted political activities are actually extremely counter-productive to the legitimate interests of Tajiks) but just because many of the evil non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan endorse partition does not mean legitimate issues and reasons for ethnic paritition do not exist. Like I said before, the spectre of ethnic conflict will loom so long as there are equally sizeable competing groups in a centralized state (yes, this was not a problem in the past where the government was a virtually nonexistent entity outside Kabul for most of the time but we now have centralized states) and partition is the only solution that is consistent with the right to self determination of all the peoples of Afghanistan.

You are right that Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras are not so much of a cohesive group as wed like to think (except it seems in conflict with Pashtuns) but that is besides the point: when Afghanistan is partitioned, there will be one less giant competing ethnic group for the North and pretty much no competing ethnic group in future Pashtunistan. The Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara issue is our problem, we will deal with it, and I happen to think it won't be so difficult for us to get along (with the Hazara especially as they are completely Persianized and actually are culturally quite similar despite the Sunni-Shia differences).

I think you make too much too much of individual cities and actually Kandahar city is the second largest in the entire country and at least on par with Herat and Mazar, if not Kabul, in any notable measure (in fact I think it has greater potential than Herat city). Mazar, with all due respect, you guys have about as much claim on as we do on Kandahar, the main points of dispute will be Kabul and Herat; the districts will surely be partitions on basis of ethnic distribution, the cities we will have to settle fairly.

Anyways this is all just theoretical discourse, my friend. I don't really believe partition is likely to happen any time soon, the most likely scenario to me it seems will be the reestablishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, not too long after the foreign forces leave.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

If people were reasonable to that extent, why would they want to partition to begin with. .

Because they're tired of the idea of a one sided ethnic domination over land that belongs to their ancestors.

This is why the ethnic/nationalist angle is always faulty you'll always have people who have claims over land you consider yours.

Why should Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras get the short end of the stick for self centered Pashtuns? Pashtuns are the Punjabis of Afghanistan.

So how do you expect them to give each other Kabul, Herat, Mazar'e sharif etc.

Well since you peddle ethnic nationalism so much. Then give those regions that are historically Farsiwan to them.

Kabul is not Pashtun, Kabul was conquered by Pashtuns but Pashtuns are not hereditary native there.

That includes Pashtun in the north. Uzbek, Hazara and Tajiks will be competing on power.

Who says Pashtuns won't be forced packing their bags to the South, ALL 3 ethnicities (Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek) have ganged up on Pashtuns before. What will stop them from doing it again?

What happens afterwards is their own business, But a galvanized Anti-Pashtun zeal with a partition backing it will certainly leave Pashtuns on the losing end. And will call Pashtuns on their bluff of being the "most undefeated people in the world". It's time the pompous fall.

the facts is pretty clear that the fighting will continue in Khorosan if division is made. The competion in the north is already widely spread and division will just fuel it further.

Even if, it'll be fighting on their terms, not yours.

[gadoonwal]

Herati welcome
We had enough political discussion on this forum but now we will also learn something about your culturally rich city.

I have been to herat for wedding of my freind and it was realy good tour.
They are knowledgable people with rich culture and history.

Pashtuns can not not compete with tajiks in afghanistan and punjabis in pakistan.
In afghanistan they are majority and in pakistan minority.
Both side have no interest in pashtu language.
They are making good progress in blame game.
You got my point cus you belong to the proud nation .
A nation without language is dead.
Enjoy your stay here.

[randolph85]

the hypocrisy of nationalist pashtuns is so apparent when it comes to tajiks in afg when they have power in numbers they are the ethnocentric bullies in afghanistan but when the roles are different in pakistan where pashtuns are the tajiks and punjabis the pashtuns, they cry of injustice. give me a ****in break, your ideas of fairness and justice are based on circumstance, not real conviction.

back on topic, ahmad zahir was a great singer but if his best friends were anything like him, then he was a pos. guy who was in the car with him when he died caused about 5 g's in damage in my house.

[randolph85]

i can see how popular this guy was with the ladies back in the day with songs like this.

Ahmad Zahir - Sultan Qalbam english lyrics - YouTube

[DSM0305]

I understand what I think you are alluding to and in fact, believe it or not, I am not particularly fond of any of the mostly evil, criminal Tajik/Uzbek/Hazara warlords and concede that many Tajik politicians (especially the ones in the current Afghan government) are frankly wastes of meat (much of their opportunistic, short-sighted political activities are actually extremely counter-productive to the legitimate interests of Tajiks) but just because many of the evil non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan endorse partition does not mean legitimate issues and reasons for ethnic paritition do not exist. Like I said before, the spectre of ethnic conflict will loom so long as there are equally sizeable competing groups in a centralized state (yes, this was not a problem in the past where the government was a virtually nonexistent entity outside Kabul for most of the time but we now have centralized states) and partition is the only solution that is consistent with the right to self determination of all the peoples of Afghanistan.

Give me a clear answer on why partition should take place. The real reason and why exactly should Pashtuns be singled out.

You are right that Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras are not so much of a cohesive group as wed like to think (except it seems in conflict with Pashtuns) but that is besides the point: when Afghanistan is partitioned, there will be one less giant competing ethnic group for the North and pretty much no competing ethnic group in future Pashtunistan. The Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara issue is our problem, we will deal with it, and I happen to think it won't be so difficult for us to get along (with the Hazara especially as they are completely Persianized and actually are culturally quite similar despite the Sunni-Shia differences).

So you want Pashtuns to get out, so Tajiks can take their place...
Pashtuns doesn't have any conflict with any ethnicity in Afghanistan. If you look at the Afghan history, the only time the other ethnicity united against ''Pashtuns'' was when Taliban come to power; even then they only united against them, because Taliban refused their cooperation. Literally every single ethnicity/warlord offered some sort of alliance with Taliban. Other than that there haven't been any given time where other ethnicities united against Pashtuns. In reality other ethnicities have always preferred Pashtuns over others.

Hazaras aren't exactly ''persianized''; the closest ethnicity to Tajiks are actually Pashtuns. The only reason Tajiks ''hate'' Pasthuns is because they consider Pashtuns as rivals. And that is only in resent time, before you guys shared the ''rule'' together with us.

My point is why are you singling out Pashtuns. Why can't as an example Tajiks go and get an independent state (assuming partition should happen). If the reason for partition is turmoil and ethnic conflict, then the logical solution would be to single out Tajiks, since they are the one who got an ethnic conflict with Uzbek.

Lets be honest; you single out Pashtuns because then Tajiks will become the largest ethnicity in ''Khorosan'' and dominate every aspect of the country. You seems like a good and honest person, so tell me don't you find your statement hypocritical...

I think you make too much too much of individual cities and actually Kandahar city is the second largest in the entire country and at least on par with Herat and Mazar, if not Kabul, in any notable measure (in fact I think it has greater potential than Herat city). Mazar, with all due respect, you guys have about as much claim on as we do on Kandahar, the main points of dispute will be Kabul and Herat; the districts will surely be partitions on basis of ethnic distribution, the cities we will have to settle fairly.

I know Kandahar is a great city. My point is the dispute wouldn't be around an ethnic dominate city, but rather on multi ethnic cities. 30 percent of Mazar population is Pashtuns, so the situation is far different than that of Kandahar. And there is many other cities which will be in dispute as well, those 3 were just examples.

Anyways this is all just theoretical discourse, my friend. I don't really believe partition is likely to happen any time soon, the most likely scenario to me it seems will be the reestablishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, not too long after the foreign forces leave.

I do agree that Partition wont happen any time soon, but my point is that people who is in favor of Partition haven't thought it through. Not only will there be dispute between territories, but have you guys even thought about geographic difficulty it will bring.

I highly doubt that Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will be reestablished. As long USA pay the bill for our army and police; it be next to impossible, to destroy the government. Unless of course the government get destroyed from within.

[DSM0305]

the hypocrisy of nationalist pashtuns is so apparent when it comes to tajiks in afg when they have power in numbers they are the ethnocentric bullies in afghanistan but when the roles are different in pakistan where pashtuns are the tajiks and punjabis the pashtuns, they cry of injustice. give me a ****in break, your ideas of fairness and justice are based on circumstance, not real conviction.

back on topic, ahmad zahir was a great singer but if his best friends were anything like him, then he was a pos. guy who was in the car with him when he died caused about 5 g's in damage in my house.

Since when did anyone cry for injustice. As far I know, Pashtuns in Pakistan proudly announce themselves Pakistanis. Yet to see a Pashtun separatist movement in Pakistan. And even more importantly whats wrong with Punjabis; You compare us with them, as if it is an insult.
I will never get Arab lovers and where they get their logic from. Haven't seen any Pashtun separatist movement in Pakistan nor Afghanistan. In Islamic countries or maybe even in the world, Pashtuns are probably people who are least nationalistic.
Yet Arab lovers for some odd reason prejudice us as if we're some ethnic centric people. The funny part is they repeat each other like parrots, with no logical argument in their statements.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

DSM, your khistak seems to be dragging behind you. He didn't say all Pashtuns are nationalist he said Nationaist Pashtuns, meaning Pashtuns who are nationalistic. Good riddance of Pashtuns are the least natonalistic. Because you now what that proves? That Nationalists are not actually from within the Main Pashtun community but indoctrinated by outsiders by being slaves to the Farangyan ideology of Nationalism.

[Herat]

Herati welcome
We had enough political discussion on this forum but now we will also learn something about your culturally rich city.

I have been to herat for wedding of my freind and it was realy good tour.
They are knowledgable people with rich culture and history.

Pashtuns can not not compete with tajiks in afghanistan and punjabis in pakistan.
In afghanistan they are majority and in pakistan minority.
Both side have no interest in pashtu language.
They are making good progress in blame game.
You got my point cus you belong to the proud nation .
A nation without language is dead.
Enjoy your stay here.

Thank you Gadoonwal, much appreciated and I hope to learn more about the rather fascinating culture and history of your people too. I have no interest in promoting Farsi and Tajik culture/interests to Pashtuns (or anyone for that matter outside Iran, North Afghanistan and Tajikstan), Id very much prefer to see Pashto and Pashtun culture flourish as our neighbour but I feel the same way about the non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan. The best scenario that would reconcile these interests of ours would be the creation of Pashtunistan.

Give me a clear answer on why partition should take place. The real reason and why exactly should Pashtuns be singled out.

It is difficult to do justice to this question in this space and without much effort but simply put, I do not think that two peoples so very much apart (Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns) will be able to live together and pursue their own interests to their utmost capacity (without ethnic conflict) in a single, centralized state. We will forever be neighbours and I wish nothing more than that everyone could get along but I am a realist-which means I prefer to see human nature as it is and not as Id like it to be- and see the world as it is -Pashtuns are a separate peoples, with separate ethnic interests that will always be largely incompatible with ours at its core. Im not singling out Pashtuns, the same will probably hold for the Turkic speaking Uzbeks and it would be better for them to secede from a future Khorasan (and join Uzbekistan) but we have to crawl before we walk.

So you want Pashtuns to get out, so Tajiks can take their place...
Pashtuns doesn't have any conflict with any ethnicity in Afghanistan. If you look at the Afghan history, the only time the other ethnicity united against ''Pashtuns'' was when Taliban come to power; even then they only united against them, because Taliban refused their cooperation. Literally every single ethnicity/warlord offered some sort of alliance with Taliban. Other than that there haven't been any given time where other ethnicities united against Pashtuns. In reality other ethnicities have always preferred Pashtuns over others.

Hazaras aren't exactly ''persianized''; the closest ethnicity to Tajiks are actually Pashtuns. The only reason Tajiks ''hate'' Pasthuns is because they consider Pashtuns as rivals. And that is only in resent time, before you guys shared the ''rule'' together with us.

My point is why are you singling out Pashtuns. Why can't as an example Tajiks go and get an independent state (assuming partition should happen). If the reason for partition is turmoil and ethnic conflict, then the logical solution would be to single out Tajiks, since they are the one who got an ethnic conflict with Uzbek.

Lets be honest; you single out Pashtuns because then Tajiks will become the largest ethnicity in ''Khorosan'' and dominate every aspect of the country. You seems like a good and honest person, so tell me don't you find your statement hypocritical...

No I don't; again, in the long run, if the Turkic Uzbeks turn out to be unassimilable then they should secede from Khorasan- but the Hazara I do think are assimilable. First of all, they are a Tajik-Mongol hybrid population as it is (this is what the genetic data seems to indicate) and second, they are a Persianized people, we differ really only in our sect of religion; in the long term, the Tajik and Hazara will become a single peoples. Khorasan will be a Persian "melting pot" a la America was for the various European groups but the same cannot happen with the Persianized North and Pashtunistan. With regard to Afghan history, the comparison with today is faulty: historically, Afghanistan was effectively a tribal quasi-federal entity in that affairs were mostly in the hands of local tribes, you can't compare this with a modern centralized state. And competitive ethnic politics is a property of the later.

I know Kandahar is a great city. My point is the dispute wouldn't be around an ethnic dominate city, but rather on multi ethnic cities. 30 percent of Mazar population is Pashtuns, so the situation is far different than that of Kandahar. And there is many other cities which will be in dispute as well, those 3 were just examples.

Again, the provinces will be partitioned on the basis of ethnic distribution and I don't see why anyone would complain about this. According to the National Geographic estimate, Pashtuns comprise 70% of Kandahar city but Kandahar is Pashtun land and I think you'd agree with me that it would be nothing less than insane for non-Pashtuns to make a claim on Kandahar city, the same is true of Mazar.

I do agree that Partition wont happen any time soon, but my point is that people who is in favor of Partition haven't thought it through. Not only will there be dispute between territories, but have you guys even thought about geographic difficulty it will bring.

What makes you think that a centralized state with two peoples apart (Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns) is going to work?

I highly doubt that Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will be reestablished. As long USA pay the bill for our army and police; it be next to impossible, to destroy the government. Unless of course the government get destroyed from within.

Do you know how long South Vietnam lasted after the US withdrew? About 3 years. The US propped up Southern Vietnamese military (ARVN) had over a million men (armed with the then latest weapons), a huge modern airforce (with jet fighters, dragonflys, gunships and transport aircraft), tens of thousands of grenade launchers and support trucks and thousands of armoured vehicles in total. At the fall of Saigon, the North had just over 100,000 men (over 30,000 men defended Saigon) but the North was still fighting with vastly inferior equipment as they had always done. Vietnam is half the size of Afghanistan in area, let's compare the ANA: the ANA apparently has 200,000 men, up to 75% of these are drug users and most are totally illiterate; moreover, unsurprisingly the ANA is imbued with corruption. It gets better: according to the 2013 pentagon report, over 40% of recruits leave the ANA every year -the report ascribes this to incompetent commanders and "ethnic divisions"- but lets try to guess what pool of the population a very significant segment of the ANA draws from in the first place, Im guessing the following: the homeless, criminals and unemployed young men simply looking for a salary who have no interest in fighting. Im also guessing that desertion is surely to increase once NATO leaves, in fact the ANA may simply collapse in the South once the Taliban recapture even a single province. That only other report Im aware of (the SIGAR 2012 report) flat out concluded that the government is unlikely to be capable of sustaining the Afghan forces. In short, the ANA is doomed just as the corrupt current warlordocracy is doomed.

[DaZahroJaam.]

pardon me for interrupting all this stupidity...
Can we all take a few moments to brainstorm names for some individuals who happen to be accomplished nationalists here??

[DaZahroJaam.]

exactly!