Jinnah, an armchair politician

[dawn]

Another lie by punjabies British took Kpk in 1893 long after ranjit Singh, British inherited Peshawar from LAN Singh thats it.

And Peshawar was most important city, rest came naturally. You capture Peshawar mean you capture KPK. No one actually cares about some mountains. British left Nepalis in mountains on their own and now Nepal is separate country.

[Sher-E-Punjab]

Paan yaka. So I **** paan? Gud yaar





Did you even read what he said? It's typical urbanite slang, and he doesn't even know that it's 'paaen' and not 'paan' like paan and ghutka lol

Please, don't question my Punjabiness. I am far more comfortable in my own skin than you, Peshaw(e)r, and this Rooh guy. You're a bunch of urban twats who grew up in Islamabad and have never met an Afghan, Baloch or Sikh in your life. You've never even been to the tribal areas, heck you all piss in your pants thinking about going to Karachi so you definitely are too scared of FATA.

Let's hear you say something in Punjabi then, go on, impress me Daan akhbaar

LMAO you ****ing retard. Did you seriously try to criticize my punjabi just because it was written in Roman alphabet?

Phudda yvon dya, teri paan da chola maaran teray abay de charpai te. Twadi pani walay karray vich peshab kar ke bakra chukkan. Teri ghasti ma da chola paar ke teray mun naal lun poonja. Ganda sikh naali di keera.

Hey listen sikh, maybe you should go shave your sisters mustache and vagina before trying to hand out 'punjabi' certificates here.

I swear to God If you are in Pakistan, I will break your ****ing skull with a rock. Ranjit Singh di najaiz aulad.

[Sher-E-Punjab]

Paan yaka. So I **** paan? Gud yaar





Did you even read what he said? It's typical urbanite slang, and he doesn't even know that it's 'paaen' and not 'paan' like paan and ghutka lol

Please, don't question my Punjabiness. I am far more comfortable in my own skin than you, Peshaw(e)r, and this Rooh guy. You're a bunch of urban twats who grew up in Islamabad and have never met an Afghan, Baloch or Sikh in your life. You've never even been to the tribal areas, heck you all piss in your pants thinking about going to Karachi so you definitely are too scared of FATA.

Let's hear you say something in Punjabi then, go on, impress me Daan akhbaar

Teri paan da me zaroor yaka, phudda yvon da kanjar. Khussa chatan dya, salam kar avde jijay nu. Kala beghairat hindu.

[dawn]

Paan yaka. So I **** paan? Gud yaar





Did you even read what he said? It's typical urbanite slang, and he doesn't even know that it's 'paaen' and not 'paan' like paan and ghutka lol

Please, don't question my Punjabiness. I am far more comfortable in my own skin than you, Peshaw(e)r, and this Rooh guy. You're a bunch of urban twats who grew up in Islamabad and have never met an Afghan, Baloch or Sikh in your life. You've never even been to the tribal areas, heck you all piss in your pants thinking about going to Karachi so you definitely are too scared of FATA.

Let's hear you say something in Punjabi then, go on, impress me Daan akhbaar

I've been to darra market and last time I checked darra is in tribal area. I've met plenty of afghan refugees but never any Baloch though. You don't find many of them in punjab apart from in cities maybe. Karachi again is save as any other part of Pakistan, why anyone would be scared to go there?

[Porus]

Hey listen sikh, maybe you should go shave your sisters mustache and vagina before trying to hand out 'punjabi' certificates here.

I don't have a sister. But I'll happy to shave yours if you have one

I swear to God If you are in Pakistan, I will break your ****ing skull with a rock. Ranjit Singh di najaiz aulad.

Why a rock? Why not a Preethi spice mixer? You know the ones you see on Indian television?

[Charsi Malang]

And Peshawar was most important city, rest came naturally. You capture Peshawar mean you capture KPK. No one actually cares about some mountains. British left Nepalis in mountains on their own and now Nepal is separate country.

Capturing Peshawar does not mean capturing KPK. The time you are talking about, the people who captured it weren`t even safe outside the cantonment areas.

You will find people care a lot about a "few mountains" for these mountains hold passes through which invaders can descend and naturally these routes need to be secured, these mountains were also were a lot of the resistance to imperialism stemmed from. These mountains are also were criminals and rebels would flee to when escaping the authorities.

[Charsi Malang]

British who came up with these terms almost classified pashto as yet another indic language. Pashto is only "iranic" (lol) language with dravidian retroflex. Pashtuns are only iranic people who because of high ASI cluster with Indians genetically. This mean you are self hater.

I don't know what afghani hashis you're smoking but close to billion people speak indic languages in India and they are your brothers right now. You didn't ousted anyone, you're just confused habshi who can't accept that he's not that different then Indians if we ignore your habshi part as genetics and language shows.

What a load of rubbish

The British did not classify Pashto as an Indic language. It has always been classified as a language which falls into the "eastern Iranian" sphere of languages. More so now as more research has gone into the origin of Pashto.

You will find, that Afghans are quite different from Indians my friend-any blind person can see that. You sound very deluded.

[Charsi Malang]

Ahmad Shah was wheat thief but Pakistan honour him because he was muslim all said and done. Pakistan ka matlab kya, la ilaha illallah muhammadur rasulullah

There are many other Muslim leaders and conquerors. Why does Pakistan choose to honour Ahmad Shah? I don`t think it is some blind Islamic brotherhood that causes Pakistan to honour him.

Never could get to grips with "Pakistan means there`s no god but Allah and prophet Muhammad (swt) is his messenger." Surely with such a strong prayer associated with the name of a nation, you would expect it to be a purely Islamic caliphate. Yet all the laws are British made in Pakistan, and the culture and language is Indic.

Please don`t think I am anti Pakistan, but there are many contradictions here.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Mosques were desecrated during the time of the Misls, these Misls included Bhangi, Sukhercharia, Ahluwalia and several others to name a few. The Bhangis had the most influence and had captured Lahore from the Durranis.

These very same misls were, I guess you could say a little more sophisticated than Guerillas. They had weapons, artillery and the prowess to fight large armies like the army of Ahmad Shah and Nader Quli. These Misls were not tolerant to begin with, and had large numbers of Sikhs with intense religious convictions, to the point sometimes of being intolerant towards others: Hindus and Muslims as the source Samandri posted, though still not quite sure where that source is from.

The source has failed to give any evidence of Ranjit's attitude towards Muslims, there was a big difference between the Misls and Ranjit's rule. Ranjit brought a level of peace and harmony which Punjab had not seen for a while, people paid their taxes, they went to schools, the military of Punjab was highly sophisticated compared to other South Asian armies etc.

The source is in the thread, 3/4 posts down.

As for Ranjit's attitude:

Many Muslims were actually nobles and advisers of the Maharajah, Ranjit's foreign minister was a Muslim: Fakir Azizuddin. He accompanied Ranjit on occasions to British India and Afghanistan. The same Fakir Khandan today lives in Lahore, and one of them's actually given a TedTalk:

His gaining off of RS explains his definitive bias in favor of RS. Just read the comments on his page to show you how people think he's clearly disingenuous.

As for Muslims having high ranks (vs low rank), I'm not sure how many there were... I'm certain you count them on 1 hand at best, unless you can prove otherwise. They didn't have the manpower to do it entirely on their own, but they also wanted to desecrate. While it could've been a balancing act to a certain degree, the reality is that it looked like they could desecrate whatever and whenever they wanted.

This doesn't mean they were philosophers, it just means they know how to read and write, which was a big accomplishment back in the day, to educate a population. Don't think the Durranis or Mughals were ever concerned about Punjab's literacy.

I know what it means, I'm just asking for a source. Preferably one better than a guy, likely biased based on history, doing a TED talk (or a website that claims a headless banta singh did bhangra to fight off muslims).

Calm down dude. Stop putting harri and laal mirch in your masala and maybe the khujli will reside

Right... but I'm interested in knowing who those people were that were literate in Punjabi and Farsi back then? I'm basically saying I doubt anyone other than court officials and high rankers were literate in both.

[Peshawer_222]

There are many other Muslim leaders and conquerors. Why does Pakistan choose to honour Ahmad Shah? I don`t think it is some blind Islamic brotherhood that causes Pakistan to honour him.

Never could get to grips with "Pakistan means there`s no god but Allah and prophet Muhammad (swt) is his messenger." Surely with such a strong prayer associated with the name of a nation, you would expect it to be a purely Islamic caliphate. Yet all the laws are British made in Pakistan, and the culture and language is Indic.

Please don`t think I am anti Pakistan, but there are many contradictions here.

It's kind of a mix bag of secular and religious ideas . Founder wanted it to be secular , Laws are British , People aren't exactly religious zealots like Saudi or Iran but it calls itself the Fort of Islam . Rural areas tend to be Islamic and conservative while urban areas are moderate/westernised .

There would be a mosque in one corner calling for Islamization of Pakistan and not very far there would be cocktail music party which wouldn't look out of place in the west .

[Porus]

There are many other Muslim leaders and conquerors. Why does Pakistan choose to honour Ahmad Shah? I don`t think it is some blind Islamic brotherhood that causes Pakistan to honour him.

Any reason to hate India. That's it. India for Pakistan is Sikhs and Hindus, apparently once you become Muslims you have to switch sides over to barbarians like Ghaznavi and Abdali. Not all Pakistanis agree with this though.

The source is in the thread, 3/4 posts down.

I'll have a read through, just to be clear we are talking about Syed Muhammad Latif's History of Punjab yes?

As for Ranjit's attitude:

To be fair, the Badshahi Masjid would make a wonderful ammunition store, it's massive!

His gaining off of RS explains his definitive bias in favor of RS. Just read the comments on his page to show you how people think he's clearly disingenuous.

Well most Punjabis have a bias against him without even reading proper history, except Pakistani textbooks. So it's refreshing to hear from a family that worked with the Maharajah.

As for Muslims having high ranks (vs low rank), I'm not sure how many there were... I'm certain you count them on 1 hand at best, unless you can prove otherwise. They didn't have the manpower to do it entirely on their own, but they also wanted to desecrate. While it could've been a balancing act to a certain degree, the reality is that it looked like they could desecrate whatever and whenever they wanted.

As I said before the Misls were operating at a time when Punjab and India as a whole was in chaos. If Afghans are coming and desecrating your temples by filling the pool with cow blood and the blood of innocents, then you know, it's not that surprising that they would do the same to a mosque. We're talking about a time of great instability, and whatever way you look at it, it wasn't Punjabis who started this. In fact none of these conflicts or invasions were usually ever by an Indian empire, it was always a Central Asian or Afghan incursion, followed by a Hindu/Sikh resistance. Abdali will always be in the wrong, he made the first mistake to invade, sack Lahore, Multan and Dehli.

I know what it means, I'm just asking for a source. Preferably one better than a guy, likely biased based on history, doing a TED talk (or a website that claims a headless banta singh did bhangra to fight off muslims).

Right... but I'm interested in knowing who those people were that were literate in Punjabi and Farsi back then? I'm basically saying I doubt anyone other than court officials and high rankers were literate in both.

I can't remember the source name, when I find it, I'll PM you.

[dawn]

There are many other Muslim leaders and conquerors. Why does Pakistan choose to honour Ahmad Shah? I don`t think it is some blind Islamic brotherhood that causes Pakistan to honour him.

Never could get to grips with "Pakistan means there`s no god but Allah and prophet Muhammad (swt) is his messenger." Surely with such a strong prayer associated with the name of a nation, you would expect it to be a purely Islamic caliphate. Yet all the laws are British made in Pakistan, and the culture and language is Indic.

Please don`t think I am anti Pakistan, but there are many contradictions here.

Brother I've said it before Ahmad Shah was looter, wheat thief, low character person but was muslim at the end of the day. Pakistan mean la illahi ila muhammadur rasulullah. Nothing wrong to honour him, Afghan lands were piss poor and are piss poor. Their migrations to greener pastures was natural just like now, only difference is now they come as refugees and not as slaves of some central asian army. One of first prophet of Islam were sent to ancient Pakistan, later on people lost their ways. Speaking arabic isn't requirement to become moozlim.

Pakistan honour many muslim rulers like Ghaznavi, Tipu Sultan, Babur, Ghauri, Qasim etc

[Elite Pakhtun]

I'll have a read through, just to be clear we are talking about Syed Muhammad Latif's History of Punjab yes?

I'll PM the sources of both.

Well most Punjabis have a bias against him without even reading proper history, except Pakistani textbooks. So it's refreshing to hear from a family that worked with the Maharajah.

The thing about Punjabi history is that the dividing line of religion did make it so that, in sikh empire for example, some punjabis won and others lost. It would be disingenuous to say all punjabis gained off of this.

Similarly, there were Punjabis who gained significantly off of the Muslim empires. The sikhs were the losers in those cases.

As I said before the Misls were operating at a time when Punjab and India as a whole was in chaos. If Afghans are coming and desecrating your temples by filling the pool with cow blood and the blood of innocents, then you know, it's not that surprising that they would do the same to a mosque. We're talking about a time of great instability, and whatever way you look at it, it wasn't Punjabis who started this. In fact none of these conflicts or invasions were usually ever by an Indian empire, it was always a Central Asian or Afghan incursion, followed by a Hindu/Sikh resistance. Abdali will always be in the wrong, he made the first mistake to invade, sack Lahore, Multan and Dehli.

Well I'll agree that the environment at the time was such that stuff like this happened. I do not agree that sacking Lahore, Multan, and Delhi were mistakes. The mistake that ASD made was ignoring the Sikhs after having killed what 8000 at his empire's infancy. The sikhs not only amassed manpower, but also wealth. Had he persecuted them, he would've saved himself a lot of pain, and history would be entirely different.

That's just my opinion though. We can speculate forever.

I can't remember the source name, when I find it, I'll PM you.

Sure.

[Porus]

The thing about Punjabi history is that the dividing line of religion did make it so that, in sikh empire for example, some punjabis won and others lost. It would be disingenuous to say all punjabis gained off of this.

Of course! But just how Pashtuns find pride in Mirwais Khan and Ahmad Shah, it's the same for me. There are people whom in Punjab are sons of the soil, whether it's Ranjit Singh, Nusrat Fateh Ali, Bulleh Shah, Damodar Arora or Bhagat Singh. Pride of Punjab for me is our heritage, not Raheel Sharif or Ayub Khan, or Pak Military as a whole even.

Similarly, there were Punjabis who gained significantly off of the Muslim empires. The sikhs were the losers in those cases.

I'll contend that, there's winners and losers in both cases.

Well I'll agree that the environment at the time was such that stuff like this happened. I do not agree that sacking Lahore, Multan, and Delhi were mistakes. The mistake that ASD made was ignoring the Sikhs after having killed what 8000 at his empire's infancy. The sikhs not only amassed manpower, but also wealth. Had he persecuted them, he would've saved himself a lot of pain, and history would be entirely different.

Strategically Ahmad Khan didn't do anything wrong. He saw the Sikhs as a threat and rightly so. They were valiant warriors who had, like you said, amassed manpower to the extent of being more than just mere guerrillas and history proved in their favour as they defeated Timur and Zaman Shah to reclaim Punjab. Ahmad Khan was on point in his tactics, but purely from an emotional standpoint I wouldn't like anyone who would burn my home city, or any other places in my country. ASD wasn't a leader of Muslims, he was a good general and perhaps fair to his Durrani tribesmen or Pashtun/Tajik soldiers. For the rest of Afghanistan he was like every other king.

[Elite Pakhtun]

Of course! But just how Pashtuns find pride in Mirwais Khan and Ahmad Shah, it's the same for me.

Well... As you know, it's not that simple either. Iblis, for example just said he doesn't like Durrani because of Iblis's connection to Hotaks.

But yes, generally they're both seen as favorable. That's because vast majority of Pakhtuns are Muslims.

There are people whom in Punjab are sons of the soil, whether it's Ranjit Singh, Nusrat Fateh Ali, Bulleh Shah, Damodar Arora or Bhagat Singh. Pride of Punjab for me is our heritage, not Raheel Sharif or Ayub Khan, or Pak Military as a whole even.

I'll contend that, there's winners and losers in both cases.

Not apples to apples.

The demarcating line of religion is important, whether you do or don't believe in it, you should consider where your ancestors were in the picture.

Sikhs were brutal murders when it came to Punjabi Muslims as well. Ranjit Singh was actually out hunting for Adina Beg, and looking to find his town/village and raze it to the ground. When they won a battle, they would be very brutal. Azan and beef slaughter were banned.

When they got Kashmir, they were really brutal as well. If a Sikh killed a local, he would be fined (I forget the exact number, but I believe it was) between 16-20 rupees. (This I did not forget) Out of the 16-20 Rs, 4 would go to the family of the victims if they were Hindu. 2 if they were Muslim.

Sikhs killed MANY Muslims in what is now Indian Punjab. Have a look at siege of Sirhind, or pillaging of Jallandar. Those are also sons of your soil. In this case, the demarcation prevents it from being "ethnic heritage". One could claim it's sikh heritage (along with the sikhs getting slaughtered, as well).

There are exceptions, such as the TED talk guy's ancestor. One of the tasks his specific ancestor had would be to go around convincing people to pay tribute.

The book you mentioned, A History of Punjab, has ample details on their atrocities. The author wrote it in 1890 i.e. the idea of Pakistan was nowhere to be seen.

Strategically Ahmad Khan didn't do anything wrong. He saw the Sikhs as a threat and rightly so. They were valiant warriors who had, like you said, amassed manpower to the extent of being more than just mere guerrillas and history proved in their favour as they defeated Timur and Zaman Shah to reclaim Punjab.

I disagree. He didn't pursue Sikhs seriously. Crude analogy, but he made lump sum payments every so often instead of paying in installments.

A serious pursuit of Sikhs would've nipped them in the bud, would've kept Kashmir in his hands. Even if we assume succumbing to the British was inevitable, the Kashmir problem Pakistan is facing would not have been an issue.

Ahmad Khan was on point in his tactics, but purely from an emotional standpoint I wouldn't like anyone who would burn my home city, or any other places in my country. ASD wasn't a leader of Muslims, he was a good general and perhaps fair to his Durrani tribesmen or Pashtun/Tajik soldiers. For the rest of Afghanistan he was like every other king.

Not sure if he was on point with tactics, but the destruction on the city stuff I can understand.

Having said that, my only point is the Sikh stuff is pretty much Sikh heritage, not Punjabi heritage. Just like the Punjabis that were high ranking in the Muslim empires are Muslim Punjabi heritage, and not Sikh heritage. In fact Sikhs hated Punjabi Muslims.