Afghanistan part of South Asia?

[Karachi]

When Afghanistan was under Russian occupation, it was included as Central Asia, but now days most of the organizations consider it part of South Asia

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

Oh well, welcome to much warmer countries

Imagine if there was a south asian alliance, people could travel all over. I would have home in tropical south india, sri lanka or maldives

[Yousufzai]

I think culturally, linguistically, and historically, Afghanistan and the Pashtun and Baloch regions of Pakistan have very little to do with South Asia.

[pashtanajan]

Afghanistan is simultaneously considered a Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and South Asian country depending on the context. Though, genetically and culturally, we're a south-central Asian country like Tajikistan, & parts of Uzbekistan and Pakistan (KPK, balochistan) etc. We're now considered also a South Asian country on an economic level because we joined SAARC a few years ago, but we're also part of CAREC (Central Asian Regional Economic Cooperation). Since we're located at the crossroads of civilization, where we belong geographically is rather arbitrary. Although you can argue, Afghanistan is a true Central Asian country due to the fact that it's located nearly in the heart of Asia, and distinctive civilizations have neighboured it throughout the ages—Turkic, Persian, Indian, etc. And it's thus a melting pot of different people of Asia.

[Afghanfootball]

I think culturally, linguistically, and historically, Afghanistan and the Pashtun and Baloch regions of Pakistan have very little to do with South Asia.

While I dont think we are South Asian you cant really say we have little to do considering how many times our ancestors have conquered India.

[tripledouble]

I think culturally, linguistically, and historically, Afghanistan and the Pashtun and Baloch regions of Pakistan have very little to do with South Asia.

totally wrong..

historically pukhtuns and baloch are tied with indus valley/present-day Pakistan and northernmost parts of india, the mehrgarh & indus valley civilisations covered all of Pakistan,north india and east afghanistan.

that is just ancient history, then look at last 2000 years, from Hindu shahis of kabul to Mahmud ghaznavi, to Ghaurids,Khiljis,Suri,Abdali,Lodhis etc etc all ruled over north india and heartland was in present age pakistan and then you have Mughal and Sikh empires ruling over Kpk for long.

For Baloch, their best king Mir Chakar ruled over Sindh and Punjab, he is buried in Satgarah Punjab, today there are millions of baloch descent ppl in janoobi Punjabi and Sindh. The Baluchis ruled over Sindh for hundreds of years, from Khan of Kalat,Talpur Mirs to Khairpur mirs.

The Rig Veda was composed in Gandhara,KP & vedic Sanskrit was developed in modern KPK, you need to learn more history.

Culturally, Pashtuns are mostly central Asian.

For Baloch, culturally they are more South Asian than Pukhtuns, only northern Baloch are persian influence, the southern Baloch have strong ties with Sindh and Sindhi culture -Awaran,Lasbela,Khuzdar,Sibi etc have more in common with Sindh, and east Baloch lands such as Dera Bugti and Naseerabad etc have more in common with Seraiki lands

More Baluch live in Sind and Punjab than anywhere, you can read in balochhal, there's article about this, and for Pukhtuns there are more Pukhtun descent people in subcontinent than in central Asia or middle east.

There are millions of Baluch in DG Khan,Rajanpur,Jacobabad,Muzzafargarh and millions of pukhtuns in Attock & Mianwali, how many in your beloved middle east?

Look at modern history, and just look at Pukhtun impact on the film industry of this region, just 1 century ago Peshawar was capital of Urdu film industry before shifting to bombay.

Linguistically, half the Baloch speak Brahui, wich is a Dravidian language linking it with south Indian languages.

Pashto is the ONLY Iranic language with reflexive consonants, if u study languages u should know retroflexive consonants are a Dravidian trait which had influence on Indo Arya languages which in turn had influence on Pashto .

Aside from that, large number of Pukhtuns speak Hindko & some Seraiki in KPK, compare to how many Pukhtuns speak Arabic or Turkic languages as 1st language?very little.


Finally Genetically Pashtuns especially Pak Pashtuns and Baloch are closer to ethnic groups of Pakistan/Indus valley than they are to any other group in the world, your closest genetic cousins are in fact Sindhis and upper caste punjabis!

Afghan Pashtuns are a bit different, i'm just speaking of Pak Pashtuns. Peshawar & surrounding areas of KP have more in common north subcontinent than Kandahar which had more links with Persia.

If u feel different from other Pakistanis, tell would you feel more culturally more comfortable in Islamabad or central Asian city of Astana?Would u feel culturally a better fit in Karachi/Lahore or in Diyarbakir, Kurdistan?Would u fit better in Muzaffarabad or Tehran?I'm asking u an all pak pashtuns.


and since you are Yusufzai and perhaps from Swat?, which is perhaps one of most South Asian influence cities of greater Pashtunkhwa, it's quite ironic your statement.

I recommend u read this article for more info on history of Proto-Pakistan(before it existed)

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/18/whats-wrong-with-pakistan/

Here some maps to help you understand































On topic: I think Afg is central Asian but Pakistani Pukhtun and Baluch areas are definitely part of same region and cline as Pakistan, superficial d/f due to ethnic nationalism don't change facts

[Bengal_Tiger]

Geographically - no.

Culturally - no.

Racially - heck, no.

Religiously - Well they are Sunni Hanafi Maturidi like other south Asians with a Persian influence in their Islam e.g. Bengalis and Pakistanis also say "namaz" for "salah"/prayer.

In the past they were Buddhist and also there was Hindu influence too.

The Indian-origin Deobandis have major influence on Afghanistan too e.g. via the Taliban.



Historically - no Afghanistan is not really part of south Asia or even if it was (a very dubious claim) at the most it is on the periphery.


Politically - Technically, yes because it's part of SAARC and sometimes news organizations have classified some Afghan news as falling in to the south Asia related section.


However if someone were to ask me a simple, yes and no answer. I would clearly say "NO."

If someone were to ask me for an answer in a sentence, I would say "No they're not but they have had major influences from and on south Asia in terms of religion and culture."


Most importantly it is for Afghans themselves to define what they are and Afghans I know definitely do not like to be associated as South Asians and find that somewhat offensive.

[MENTION=5723]Kushan Prince[/MENTION]

[tripledouble]

Geographically - no.

Geographically Afg is South-Central Asia. [MENTION=3658]pashtanajan[/MENTION] summed it up nicely

Culturally - no.

I agree with this, but it has exported it's culture to Pak and north india through conquest.

Racially - heck, no.

Genetically they are melting pot but are still firmly in South-Central Asia



I understand you are speaking from a southeast Asian PoV.

Religiously - Well they are Sunni Hanafi Maturidi like other south Asians with a Persian influence in their Islam e.g. Bengalis and Pakistanis also say "namaz" for "salah"/prayer.

In the past they were Buddhist and also there was Hindu influence too.

The Indian-origin Deobandis have major influence on Afghanistan too e.g. via the Taliban.

Historically - no Afghanistan is not really part of south Asia or even if it was (a very dubious claim) at the most it is on the periphery.

It was the playmaker, not the periphery, they ruled over subcontinent and the capital was always in Lahore or Delhi, with Punjab being the buffer zone.

Most importantly it is for Afghans themselves to define what they are and Afghans I know definitely do not like to be associated as South Asians and find that somewhat offensive.

[MENTION=5723]Kushan Prince[/MENTION]

agree.

[Bengal_Tiger]

France had a major role in north Africa e.g. the reason why so many people can speak French there, but it's not part of north Africa.

The central Asian Turks (Uzbek Mughals) also played a major role in south Asia but are not south Asians e.g. Dostum an Uzbek Turk is not a south Asian.


*

As for the geography stuff, even on this forum many have said that the Indus is the dividing line between south Asia and non-South Asia (Iranic world, Afghan world, central Asia whatever you want to call it but not south Asia).

Racially, there is some Indic admixture but Afghans are mainly Iranic and Turkic i.e. nothing to do with South Asia.

They also find it annoying when people try to somehow drag Afghans along as part of some other nation's history and culture.

[tripledouble]

France had a major role in north Africa e.g. the reason why so many people can speak French there, but it's not part of north Africa.

French influence there is recent from the past couple centuries of colonization, the Afghan link with Indus basin goes back thousands of years.

The central Asian Turks (Uzbek Mughals) also played a major role in south Asia but are not south Asians e.g. Dostum an Uzbek Turk is not a south Asian.

Uzbeks didn't have some amount of influence or power, nor do they share a border.


*

As for the geography stuff, even on this forum many have said that the Indus is the dividing line between south Asia and non-South Asia (Iranic world, Afghan world, central Asia whatever you want to call it but not south Asia)

It may be dividing line, but regions bordering it such as all 4 provinces of Pakistan are the trasitional point where a lot of overlap of all kinds happens.

Punjab/Sindh/Kashmir are the furthest frontier of South Asia & Pashtunkhwa/Baluchistan are the easternmost border states of iranic world, these both areas represent extreme cultural variation which isn't found in either heartland of indic and iranic worlds.
The Indus valley state can be considered it's own world, modern historians and geneticists are coming to that conclusion

Racially, there is some Indic admixture but Afghans are mainly Iranic and Turkic i.e. nothing to do with South Asia.

Iranic,Indic and Turkic are linguistic families, nothing to do with genetics

This map i shared was not a geoprahic map which you mistook it for, it is a genetic map from Dna tribes, it's regions into zones with genetic similarities



South-Central Asia is part of same genetic cline emanating from the indus basin.

genetics



there's less genetic distance b/w say a sindhi/burusho with pashtun than a pashtun with a kurd or persian.

They also find it annoying when people try to somehow drag Afghans along as part of some other nation's history and culture.

my comment was mainly for pakistani pashtun not afghanistan ones

[Bengal_Tiger]

my comment was mainly for pakistani pashtun not afghanistan ones

Yes, but the topic is "Afghanistan part of south Asia?"


Anyway whether they are/aren't is immaterial to me and it is up to them to say what they are.

[tripledouble]

Yes, but the topic is "Afghanistan part of south Asia?"


Anyway whether they are/aren't is immaterial to me and it is up to them to say what they are.

my first comment was for Yusufzai, he brought up pak pashtuns

btw you can quote me, idk why you seem to be vary of me?i'm not troll from defence.pk i don't even have account there, i just read comments from there, that's how i know the multi-forum celebrity luffy

[Yousufzai]

my first comment was for Yusufzai, he brought up pak pashtuns

Ethnically, Pashtuns and Baloch are classified as an Iranian people. Linguistically, they speak eastern Iranian languages, of course. Culturally, they have their own tribal laws (Pashtunwali and Balochmayar). Historically, yes, they were ruled for some periods by foreign empires, but they also had their own empires which stretched to northern India. With the Indus River forming a natural boundary of sorts for the subcontinent, both communities were a part of Afghanistan for years, until the highly artificial DL was imposed on the people there.

So I don't know on what basis you make your claims.

[tripledouble]

Ethnically, Pashtuns and Baloch are classified as an Iranian people.

Linguistically, not wholly genetically, an Iranic Kurd has more in common culturally and genetically with his Syrian and Turkish neighbor than with a Pashtun. A Baloch from Awaran has more in common with his Sindhi counterpart than he does with a Persian from Tehran. A Pashtun from Kohat has more in common with his Potohari counterpart from Attock than with an Iranic Tajik from Herat -you're just confusing a linguistic family with cultural,historical and genetic ties, it's okay, it's a common mistake for laymen.

Linguistically, they speak eastern Iranian languages, of course.

You obviously didn't read my whole comment properly. Pashto is the only Iranic language with reflexive consonants, that is a trademark of South Asian languages both Indo-Aryan & Dravidian.

Not all Baluch speak Baluchi, 50% of Baloch speak Brahui, a Dravidian language, so going by you logic of linguistic branches signifying race, that would mean a Brahui-speaker is the same race as a Tamil?Of course not, because linguistics =/= race.

Not too mention the numerous Hindko-speaking Pukhtuns of Abbotabad or Seraiki speaking Pukhtuns of DI Khan, how many Pukhtuns speak Gilaki or Kurdish?

Then there are the Sindhi-speaking Baloch found in Sibi and other districts of Balochistan or the Khetrani-speaking Baloch of Barkhan etc

Culturally, they have their own tribal laws (Pashtunwali and Balochmayar).

In rural Pakistan incl Punjab and Sindh, people follow a code of life, to settle disputes etc etc, that's why many barbaric practices in rural pakistan take place in all 4 provinces and 3 territories, call it tribalism or clannism or whatever, it's a similar code, whether it be about hospitality, or swaara or watta satta or karo kari, it's not unique to just Pashtuns/Baluch.

BTW Persian people do not have a tribal code, and they are the main Iranic people.

Historically, yes, they were ruled for some periods by foreign empires, but they also had their own empires which stretched to northern India.

Again you didn't even read my comment, such immaturity, look at the map i posted, i included Afghan empires such as Durranis which ruled all over Pakistan and for much of history all of Pakistan were ruled by same empires that ruled Afg'stan.

With the Indus River forming a natural boundary of sorts for the subcontinent

It's not a natural boundary, heard of karachi? The Indus valley is it's own state, unique in it's own way, all Pakistan ethnic groups are connected by the mighty Indus, you haven't studied the Indus saga, go read the article i shared, your arguments are weak because of lack of research or understanding.

, both communities were a part of Afghanistan for years, until the highly artificial DL was imposed on the people there.

Afghanistan was historically just Pashtun lands, not Baloch areas, yes Baloch were ruled by Pashtuns but so were Punjabis/Sindhis/kashmiris etc, just look at each map i posted, you'll understand the historical connections.

So I don't know on what basis you make your claims.

My whole comment, the link i added mr.i'm-too-cool-to-read :D

[marwat]

[MENTION=18008]tripledouble[/MENTION] aren't we confusing geography of Afghanistan as being part of south asia with ethnic Pashtun being south asian ?

[tripledouble]

[MENTION=18008]tripledouble[/MENTION] aren't we confusing geography of Afghanistan as being part of south asia with ethnic Pashtun being south asian ?

my comment was for yusufzai who said Pashtuns/Baloch have little to do with other Pakistani groups...