The founder of Afghanistan is Nadir Shah Irani, not Ahmad Shah Abdali

[Friends of Baloch]

Last post first. We can agree that Abdalis sided with the Afsharids during Ahmad's lifetime, but it's largely unclear to what degree they were with the Safawids or not prior to that. It's not that they sided with the Afsharids or the Safawids that is an issue. It's the context in which they did. Whether we blame Ahmad Abdali's decisions on the what he was surrounded with or his resentment to the Ghilzai tribes, he embraced the domination of foreign hegemony over the betterment of the Afghan tribes sorvreignty. Why should he be honored for this? Did he redeem himself by the fact Afghanistan was established today? Afghans have suffered terribly as a consequence of the Sadozai and then Mohmadzai rulers.

This point holds regardless of whether he held to any contemporary notion of national unity or not or even tribal unity. His efforts were simply not aimed at the sovreignty of Afghans, whether that was justified based on the state/condition of Afghans is another issue.

Mirwais Hotaki sought to slough the rule of the Safawids. He did not try to ally himself with the Ottomans nor the Mughals. all the evidence suggests that he stood behind sovreignty irregardless of possessiing a national identity.

Russian expansion into Central Asia happened in the 19th Century, but they were making incursions into Khiva as early as 1717 under Alexander Bekovich, which ended in failure, however, there was no attempt to fortify or guard the region. So the presence of Russian menace was well known and expressed throughout Central Asia ...it would be unlikely that a military commander of Ahmad Abdali's recognition would not be aware of Russians and their military attempts.

Khiva is only a Few days travel from Bukhara; and Abdali had alliances with the Uzbeks, especially as he tried to secure Herat from the remnants of the Persians. He would have certainly had steady contact with the region.

The fact is, that Abdali was more preoccupied with regional rivals rather than offsetting expansionist Britain or Russia. Again why should he praised for this?

Nader Shah bascially beat everyone into submission. Whether it was the Turkmen, Abdalis, Baloch, Ghilzai, Mughals, Uzbeks, Lezgis etc History is full of examples of tribes and small nations capitulating and joining their previous enemies. Some arrangements are short lived, others longer, some just end in extinction for the defeated. This is just history. It's not unusual. Nader Shah was brutal, very brutal.

Just look at Attila. The Huns squashed the Alans, Goths, Gepids etc and they all joined him, but broke off once he died. They all later redeemed themselves by exterminating the Huns and go on to contribute to bringing down the great Western Roman Empire. There are loads of examples in history of up's and down's like this.

I think you also give too much credit to 'Central Asia' as a concept among natives. Britian and Russia might have seen the geography that way, but Kazakhs, Tatars, Turkmens, Uzbeks etc didnt and were all notorious for their redundancy, self-interest, and disinterest in the bigger affairs of the World and how the World was chaning fast.

Russians were miles ahead of any of them at that time as far as Global awareness and advances in political philosophy and militarism go. None of them could have ever foreseen how Russia would conquer and change them forever in the way that they did. Like i said before, the Russians themselves didnt plan it that way either.

[khushal]

As a matter of fact yes, Nadir destroyed Kandahar city,

What I meant was did Abdali aid him in atrocities against Pashtuns?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

What I meant was did Abdali aid him in atrocities against Pashtuns?

I would have to conclude he participated in many of his movements to subdue Pashtuns, so yes.

I don't have as many searchable resources since I'm not at the library at the moment, but here is a suggestion of some of the things done by Abdalis who were associated with Ahmad and Nader Afshari

Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant - Michael Axworthy - Google Books

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Nader Shah bascially beat everyone into submission. Whether it was the Turkmen, Abdalis, Baloch, Ghilzai, Mughals, Uzbeks, Lezgis etc History is full of examples of tribes and small nations capitulating and joining their previous enemies. Some arrangements are short lived, others longer, some just end in extinction for the defeated. This is just history. It's not unusual. Nader Shah was brutal, very brutal.

Just look at Attila. The Huns squashed the Alans, Goths, Gepids etc and they all joined him, but broke off once he died. They all later redeemed themselves by exterminating the Huns and go on to contribute to bringing down the great Western Roman Empire. There are loads of examples in history of up's and down's like this.

I think you also give too much credit to 'Central Asia' as a concept among natives. Britian and Russia might have seen the geography that way, but Kazakhs, Tatars, Turkmens, Uzbeks etc didnt and were all notorious for their redundancy, self-interest, and disinterest in the bigger affairs of the World and how the World was chaning fast.

Russians were miles ahead of any of them at that time as far as Global awareness and advances in political philosophy and militarism go. None of them could have ever foreseen how Russia would conquer and change them forever in the way that they did. Like i said before, the Russians themselves didnt plan it that way either.

Even if that is so, why should we applaud Abdali? he wasn't really a liberator or anything.

I mean he called himself king of Khurasan, which is is all well and good, but it suggests he saw himself as an extension of the Persians.

Whatever we view of him today is a consequence of a regurgitated narrative of what "Afghan identity is expected to be" accordng to the interests of the elite rather than what Afghan identity is. The elite were tha Mohmadzai-Sadozai Cabal that held the reigns of power since then.

[Firdousi]

Even if that is so, why should we applaud Abdali? he wasn't really a liberator or anything.

I mean he called himself king of Khurasan, which is is all well and good, but it suggests he saw himself as an extension of the Persians.

Whatever we view of him today is a consequence of a regurgitated narrative of what "Afghan identity is expected to be" accordng to the interests of the elite rather than what Afghan identity is. The elite were tha Mohmadzai-Sadozai Cabal that held the reigns of power since then.

I believe thats a mistake. Identifying Khorasan with one ethnicity is historically wrong and far fetched. Tajiks have monopolized the term Khorasan and now it sounds as a Tajik-related label.

Ahmad Shah Durrani called himself King of Khorasan basically because he was the (last) rightful king of Khorasan. Since Afg as a political or geographical entity did not exist and Khorasan was an almost 2000 years old name, it gave the guy a lot of prestige and pride I believe. Honestly speaking I dont know what you guys are discussing here because it doesnt really matter lol

[Firdousi]

TBH [MENTION=18842]Samandri[/MENTION] this thread of yours makes no sense. You are a smart and cerebral guy. You can do better.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I believe thats a mistake. Identifying Khorasan with one ethnicity is historically wrong and far fetched. Tajiks have monopolized the term Khorasan and now it sounds as a Tajik-related label.

Ahmad Shah Durrani called himself King of Khorasan basically because he was the (last) rightful king of Khorasan. Since Afg as a political or geographical entity did not exist and Khorasan was an almost 2000 years old name, it gave the guy a lot of prestige and pride I believe. Honestly speaking I dont know what you guys are discussing here because it doesnt really matter lol

No I get it, Khorasan doesn't have any strict ethnic designation ....but the context which he used it would have been likely as ruling authority of the Persians of that time. All well and good, but it doens't mean he was some special savior of Afghans.

[Firdousi]

No I get it, Khorasan doesn't have any strict ethnic designation ....but the context which he used it would have been likely as ruling authority of the Persians of that time. All well and good, but it doens't mean he was some special savior of Afghans.

You are right. He wasnt a savior. All this Afghan mumbo jumbo about him being the father of Afghanistan is nonsense. Founding myths have a huge social and psychological impact on human beings. The modern man ignores or downplays its role and importance but symbol matters. Ahmad Shah is just a symbol. It doesnt really matter his deeds because for decades he was accepted by most of Afghans. Its not anymore.

BTW although I am not a huge fan of him and I agree with you that he was no savior, we should acknowledge credit when credits due. The man did found the Afghan proto-state. Also although I dislike his kinda barbarian behavior in India (we should condemn barbarism even when its committed by our own people thats why we should condemn ultra-militaristic warriors such as Timur or Mahmud Ghazni) I get why some Muslim praise him. His invasions helped to delay to decline of the Islamic age in India.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

) I get why some Muslim praise him. His invasions helped to delay to decline of the Islamic age in India.

I disagree, I think his behavior accelerated regional Muslim decline. Even if you read his writings he was preoccupied with megalomania. The guy was textbook narcissist. He probably didn't care if his empire failed as long as he could write some fancy couplets about it

[jama0112]

I really like reading your comments/knowlegde about afghan history.

It's like you're switching(i guess, i'm not sure you're 100% right about everything though) the light in a very dark room, so it looks different from before. I never thought about Ahmed shah baba in that way like you portray/expose, whatever you call it/ him.

I have seen there are a lot videos about Ahmed shah baba in a positive light, and that's why i'm suprised of you guys say the way he "really"(i'm still not 100% sure) was like/what he has done for pahstuns.

Even though i don't like you guys, your comments about afghan history is what makes me keep staying on this site.

[Samandri]

I disagree, I think his behavior accelerated regional Muslim decline. Even if you read his writings he was preoccupied with megalomania. The guy was textbook narcissist. He probably didn't care if his empire failed as long as he could write some fancy couplets about it

I have to agree with you on this, he decimated whatever power and authority of Mughals was left in India. One should note that in 1748 Mughals were able to defeat Ahmad Shah Abdali. Mughals had lost much of India to regional governors but they had good grasp on Punjab. Abdali snatched Punjab from Mughals and thus gave final blow to Mughal empire. But Afghans were foreigners, and the only thing they knew was warring. Up to 1758, they ruled Punjab indirectly (just visited Punjab to collect annual tribute). After the battle of Panipat, they were forced to govern Punjab directly and they turned out to be very incompetent people with no skills of governance and administration. They did not know how to deal with Sikhs. Despite of the decline, Mughals knew how to manage Punjab and had successfully suppressed Sikhs. Ahmad Shah Abdali on the other hand was clueless and helpless in dealing with Sikhs. The men he left in Punjab were not just nalaiq administrators but also nalaiq generals and they suffered defeats at the hands of Sikhs. Abdali had no solution for the Sikh problem and had no militarily capable men like himself, so he had to come all the way from Kandahar to Punjab each time Sikhs defeated his men there. Abdali defeated Sikhs in every battle but he had no solution for the Sikh problem and in 1767 he simply gave up on Punjab much of which had passed into the hands of Sikhs. Only Sind-Sagar doab (region between river indus and river Jehlum river) and Multan province were part of Durrani empire when Ahmad Shah Abdali died in 1772.

Most of the claims about atrocities committed by Abdali are either made up or exaggerated, usually made by modern Hindu nationalists. I have checked primary sources of 18th century and i did not find evidences about Afghans massacring innocent villagers. Most of the reports are just whining (one Mughal historian was complaining that Afghans are rude and uncouth). I did not find any cases of rapes. But they did plunder places if tribute was not paid to them. When Mughals were unable to pay tribute, Ahmad Shah ordered his men to plunder Delhi city in very systemic manner. Walls and floors of the houses of nobility and rich of Delhi were dug for treasures. People were treated rudely by Afghan soldiers and some were also beaten. Mir Taqi Meer, the famous Urdu poet, was eye-witness to that (he has written his autobiography by name of 'Zikr-i-Mir'). And most importantly, Abdali and his men were seen as successor of Nadir Shah Afshar (remembered for his cruelty there) by people of Delhi so much so that they call him Nadir Shah Durrani in their literature. Even to this say Nadir Shah is referred to as Durrani rather than Afshar in Urdu.