Tribel Culture, Why Pashtun still has it?

[Khostai]

I can not speak fro other places but Khost does not have feudal society structure.

[DSM0305]

I mean both, well tribal name identification is just one small part of it. If it was just that I would not really mind, but you know very well that Pashtun tribes are not just for name identification....most Pashtuns will even work with other ethnic groups so that their tribe will come above other Pashtuns...thats just makes me sad and angry at the same time.

It is all about development. Pashtun areas haven't seen development for centuries. A society improves and ''levels'' up from its current stage to the next, but Pashtuns are in unfortunate position which made it impossible to reach the next ''stage''.

The first huge unfortunate position is the fact that Pashtuns are divided in two different countries. Which make it hard to have common ground. The second huge problem is the fact that both countries they're divided to, undermines its culture and language. In Afghanistan it is not the culture that is under attack, but rather the language. In Pakistan it is both.

Lets give Pakistan as an example. Pakistan is a country which foundation is based upon assimilation of the various groups into Indic Muslims. Which consist on that Urdu and English becomes everyone's first language.
I previously said that the tribal society exists because of lack of development. The thing is that because Pashtuns lives in Pakistan, this will mean when there comes any development in Pashtun areas, those Pashtuns will get assimilated into the Indic culture that Pakistan is based on. Which means that Pashtuns will speak Urdu as their first language. You will see Pashtuns in Pakistan who are educated, they will speak purely Urdu, or Pashto with heavily mixed Urdu and English words. I can guarantee anyone, that in 20 years from now on, there will be very few in Pakistan who can actually speak Pashto. People in Peshawar will certainly speak only Urdu and English.

Afghanistan is a bit of a different case. People in Afghanistan have literally assimilated into Pashtun culture. The case for Pashto language is a bit different. Dari is the lingua franca in Afghanistan, but the Pashto language in itself is not in extinction. More and more Pashtuns will start speaking Dari, but Pashto will still exist in pure form. The reason for that is that Pashto is a national language and part of educational system(far from equal to dari, but it still there). The most important reason is the fact that Pashto is usable in Afghanistan. It is a national language, which means you can speak it in government, media, as president and just overall in the entire country. Which means if a person in Afghanistan get educated in Pashto, his education isn't wasted. The case is different in Pakistan. One is even lost in his own province Pashtunkhwa.

So to answer you shortly. The reason Pashtuns in Afghanistan lives in tribal society is because of lack of development and constant war in Pashtun turf. The reason Pashtuns in Pakistan lives in Tribal society is because Pakistan as a country requires people to assimilate into Indic culture.

[tilla_jogian]

It is all about development. Pashtun areas haven't seen development for centuries. A society improves and ''levels'' up from its current stage to the next, but Pashtuns are in unfortunate position which made it impossible to reach the next ''stage''.

The first huge unfortunate position is the fact that Pashtuns are divided in two different countries. Which make it hard to have common ground. The second huge problem is the fact that both countries they're divided to, undermines its culture and language. In Afghanistan it is not the culture that is under attack, but rather the language. In Pakistan it is both.

Lets give Pakistan as an example. Pakistan is a country which foundation is based upon assimilation of the various groups into Indic Muslims. Which consist on that Urdu and English becomes everyone's first language.
I previously said that the tribal society exists because of lack of development. The thing is that because Pashtuns lives in Pakistan, this will mean when there comes any development in Pashtun areas, those Pashtuns will get assimilated into the Indic culture that Pakistan is based on. Which means that Pashtuns will speak Urdu as their first language. You will see Pashtuns in Pakistan who are educated, they will speak purely Urdu, or Pashto with heavily mixed Urdu and English words. I can guarantee anyone, that in 20 years from now on, there will be very few in Pakistan who can actually speak Pashto. People in Peshawar will certainly speak only Urdu and English.

Afghanistan is a bit of a different case. People in Afghanistan have literally assimilated into Pashtun culture. The case for Pashto language is a bit different. Dari is the lingua franca in Afghanistan, but the Pashto language in itself is not in extinction. More and more Pashtuns will start speaking Dari, but Pashto will still exist in pure form. The reason for that is that Pashto is a national language and part of educational system(far from equal to dari, but it still there). The most important reason is the fact that Pashto is usable in Afghanistan. It is a national language, which means you can speak it in government, media, as president and just overall in the entire country. Which means if a person in Afghanistan get educated in Pashto, his education isn't wasted. The case is different in Pakistan. One is even lost in his own province Pashtunkhwa.

So to answer you shortly. The reason Pashtuns in Afghanistan lives in tribal society is because of lack of development and constant war in Pashtun turf. The reason Pashtuns in Pakistan lives in Tribal society is because Pakistan as a country requires people to assimilate into Indic culture.

Urdu is replacing native tongues in cities, don't expect next generation of pashtuns in karachi to speak pashto. Urdu is important for Pakistaniat, see otherwise my family couldn't have friends from Peshawar and Karachi at the same time.

[Karachi]

Urdu is replacing native tongues in cities, don't expect next generation of pashtuns in karachi to speak pashto. Urdu is important for Pakistaniat, see otherwise my family couldn't have friends from Peshawar and Karachi at the same time.

An Indian language being used for promoting Pakistaniat, what a joke of a country this is

[tilla_jogian]

An Indian language being used for promoting Pakistaniat, what a joke of a country this is

Anyone who doesn't speak urdu isn't Pakistani.

[khushal]

The same can be said about Pashtuns, majority does not live in the mountains, but in the plateus.

The swiss have one big plateau and all its people live on it. Afghanistan mountain population live in small isolated valleys. Since arable land is scarce, people are always busy fighting over it. This environment creates an aggressive warlike mentality.

[khushal]

I can not speak fro other places but Khost does not have feudal society structure.

It seems that you dont know Khost and you dont know what feudalism is:
Here is the definition
feu·dal·ism
ˈfyo͞odlˌizəm/Submit
nounhistorical
the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection.

Khost is very small and it does have a small feudal structure:
The rebellion against amanullah khan in khost was staged by feudal landowners since they were going to be losers in his land reform as well as the tribals who opposed any kind of central authority imposed on them.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0UzJAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=khost+feudal&source=bl&ots=JBRoAzkVsV&sig=yjMgMHjaBQf_PT4q9_mzdnbhl-g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz8PLS0MPLAhWHm4MKHftCB1kQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=khost%20feudal&f=false

A rebellion broke out in Khost in March 1924 that lasted until January 1925. The reason for rebellion was dissatisfaction of the tribal communities with the state policy of taxation, itinerant businessmen demanded free trade, and feudal landowners were not happy with the state policy of serving in the army.

Remember that when Nadir Khan came to power, he made an agreement with Paktias feudal landowners that they were free from mandatory military service.

The same thing happened when the communists took over. Many feudal landowners sided with the rebellion since the communist land reforms were going to take their land to be gov owned and operated.

All societies that live on arable flat lands and have knowledge of agriculture have feudal social structures all over the world except those that have evolved into industrialization. This is part of human social evolution.

[Khostai]

-_- We also have land and quite big large amount, we are not nobels and neither do we have peasants who work on our land. The same for our neighbours. The use of term feudalism dicated to the old day, there is no feudalism now in Khost and I bet the same is in other provincess.

[khushal]

-_- We also have land and quite big large amount, we are not nobels and neither do we have peasants who work on our land. The same for our neighbours. The use of term feudalism dicated to the old day, there is no feudalism now in Khost and I bet the same is in other provincess.

Then who is working on your land? If only your family is working on it, then it is not large enough for you to be a feudal landowner. If your land is large enough where a family would not have the manpower to work it, then you would be forced to hire labor, which is my entire point. You need large arable lands for feudalism to take hold.

Feudalism will always exist, it can only be replaced by industrialization.
The term "feudalism" explains the structure of Europe before industrialization. Most third world countries whose economy depends on agriculture has similar structure, it is still feudal. What happens is that when societies are introduced to the knowledge of agriculture, arable land becomes the source of wealth. People will compete to acquire as much land as possible creating a society of landowners and peasants that live on the land who work the land in exchange for living on the land and a share of the crop to eat while landowners have control of it. In Europe large landowners would provide fighting men and pledge allegiance to a king in exchange for protection of their wealth(land).

The reason the Bhutto family has power in Sindh is because the Bhutto family are one of the largest landowners in the province and its all a feudal structure. Since their wealth is derived from being arable landowners, it is in their interest to keep the status quo of keeping pakistan a feudal state.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1712917,00.html

The Sharif family on the other hand own industry since his family immigrated from Kashmir, they are not large landowners. Under his government, he has attempted to industrialize Pakistan but the Army, whose generals are mostly feudal landowners, have blocked him from it.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/the-business-empire-of-pakistan-prime-minister-nawaz-sharif-116010100105_1.html

His latest attempt to industrialize pakistan and start free trade in the region which is path to industrialization was also blocked by the Army:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistan-prime-minister-to-face-murder-charges-1409249484

Government aides said the military had already used the pressure of the protests to force the administration in the last few days to give up control of foreign policy and security affairs, traditional domains of the armed forces in which they saw Mr. Sharif taking independent stances. Analysts described the government's ceding of control of key policy areas as a "soft coup" staged by the military.

Mr. Sharif had promised to pursue a peace deal with India, which could have ended a fierce nuclear-armed rivalry in the region and told Kabul he would end Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan. Officials said those policies amounted to red lines for the military establishment.