Non-Pashtuns independance?

[Shayesta]

^ Some more sources from the very same Wiki:

Closely followed by the British, Dost was driven to extremities, and on November 4, 1840 surrendered as a prisoner. He remained in captivity during the British occupation, during the disastrous retreat of the army of occupation in January 1842, and until the recapture of Kabul in the autumn of 1842.

An 1841 local uprising resulted in the loss of the British mission and the subsequent Massacre of Elphinstone's Army of approximately 16,000 foreign forces, which included civilians and camp followers on their retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad. In 1842 the British returned, plundering Bala Hissar in revenge before fleeing back to British India.

The British and Indian forces invaded in 1878 as Kabul was under Sher Ali Khan's rule, but the British residents were again massacred. The invaders again came in 1879 under General Roberts, partially destroying Bala Hissar before retreating to British India.

Historians think it's unlikely that Akbar Khan wished for the total annihilation of the British force. An astute man politically, he would have been aware that allowing the British to extricate themselves from Afghanistan would give him the time to consolidate his control of the diverse hill tribes; whereas a massacre of 16,500 people, of which only about a quarter were a fighting force, would not be tolerated back in London and would result in another, larger army sent to exact retribution.

As weak as the British policy were and as little security the British received, it was nonetheless a unfortunate war. British and Indian armies invaded Kabul several times and got massacred several times, and those camp-followers got into Afghanistan during invasion by the British army, they weren't inhabitants of Afghanistan were they? Had the Afghan army with their families invaded the British occupied India, they would have gone through the same. Even many Indians didn't spare those British families in India who were related to the British rulers, after British empire got weakened. But yes, I do agree that those children and women should have left safely and that should have been a last warning to future British invaders, if they were indeed slaughtered then there is no justification to Khan's deeds. And I also agree that it was Kabul being the biggest resistance of British empire, that's where those forces have tasted their defeat.

But the point you are missing is that Kabulzada, with these sources, wanted to prove that Pukhtoons have only been enslaved by the British and that we never ever showed any resistance. I don't know whether you agree with those silly statements of him or not, but I definitely don't.

[ScimitarXEdge]

For scholaric source where explicite the scene is described visit britanica and islamic. But whatever you think ...
The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: A-E, p. 15

''During the retreat, which became a panicked rout, the entire force (4,500 troops and 12,000 civilians), was massacred; only one man reached Jallalabd''

Afghanistan dar Masir e Tarikh is also a very good book. If you do not accept western sources than accept your own souces. You can turn to left and right and even deny that, but you can not change reality. The Taliban are not different. They are even the most coward people ever. Using IEDs, UXOs, civilian masses, schools and villages to attack the forces. Takhar was the best example for these people

This isnt a primary source; this is from an Encyclopedia; there's no direct source material

[Shayesta]

@Hayat
Turks themselves were invaders, but you still didn't tell me how we landed into those areas?

[ScimitarXEdge]

the beauty about this wikipedia article is that it says this on top

Massacre of Elphinstone's Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.
Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (January 2011)

[Alchemist]

^ Some more sources from the very same Wiki:









As weak as the British policy were and as little security the British received, it was nonetheless a unfortunate war. British and Indian armies invaded Kabul several times and got massacred several times, and those camp-followers got into Afghanistan during invasion by the British army, they weren't inhabitants of Afghanistan were they? Had the Afghan army with their families invaded the British occupied India, they would have gone through the same. Even many Indians didn't spare those British families in India who were related to the British rulers, after British empire got weakened. But yes, I do agree that those children and women should have left safely and that should have been a last warning to future British invaders, if they were indeed slaughtered then there is no justification to Khan's deeds. And I also agree that it was Kabul being the biggest resistance of British empire, that's where those forces have tasted their defeat.

But the point you are missing is that Kabulzada, with these sources, wanted to prove that Pukhtoons have only been enslaved by the British and that we never ever showed any resistance. I don't know whether you agree with those silly statements of him or not, but I definitely don't.

I haven't read anywhere written by him that which you accuse of him...that he says pakhtuns were enslaved by british and never showed resistence. Please provide quotation.

Also I think you have missed the point that regardless of what you say, what was done to the those people, the total massacre was WRONG! those afghans who participated in that massacre will not be rewarded with Janna. From an islamic stance they were murderers. There is no pride in what had happened. We should accept that it was wrong. In retaliation Kabul was leveled later by the british... and who knows maybe it was at those atrocities that Allah has humiliated us for to this day.

Thank you for posting me the rest of the article of the wikipedia which I posted to you. Don't worry... I am not a selective reader like most ...and I read it from the beginning to the end before I posted it to you. I don't know what you wished to prove from that.

By the way ...did Albani ever say he is actually tajiki?
A lot of you seem confused to the mix of races that is Afghanistan ....did you know that the mother of the founder of the barakzai dynasty was a shia from the Qizilbash?

You all seem to project something on to him that I don't see there. I would really like to know if this is true ...or just a case of mass psychosis.

[ScimitarXEdge]

All this bad mouthing against Kabul, when it was kabulies that mounted the revolt ...meanwhile what was happening in Kandahar?

why did they wait till Wazir Akbar Khan come into the picture to mount the revolt?

It was when Wazir Akbar Khan came that they were even able to mount anything.

[Alchemist]

why did they wait till Wazir Akbar Khan come into the picture to mount the revolt?

It was when Wazir Akbar Khan came that they were even able to mount anything.

what are you on about now?

Do you know where Akbar khan came from?

Akbar khan was most likely born in Kabul... where do you think he came from?

Any historical book you read will call it a "local uprising"....where do you think it came from?


I don't understand you. Please show me your special sources.

[ScimitarXEdge]

what are you on about now?

Do you know where Akbar khan came from?

Akbar khan was most likely born in Kabul... where do you think he came from?

Any historical book you read will call it a "local uprising"....where do you think it came from?


I don't understand you. Please show me your special sources.

LOL Local to them means Afghans, not Kabulis;

[ScimitarXEdge]

According to the Direct Sources;

it says 4,500 were "fighting men" but it doesn't say they rest were primarily civilians; but either way I want to emphasize; as occupiers and invaders, they're not deemed civilians anyways.


Islamic History Sourcebook: Rev. Arthur Male: The Hill of Bones, Afghanistan 1878

They did so, or essayed to do so. And then the arch-traitor, Akbar Khan, who knew no honor, lined the cliffs en route with his overwhelming numbers. They hung upon the flanks of the retreating army, harrying them, and cutting off the stragglers day after day. Some sixteen thousand souls, of whom perhaps forty-five hundred were fighting men, the rest servants and camp-followers, left Kabul. On they struggled with desperate valor, almost at the outset having to abandon their baggage. It was winter-time, and the snow lay thickly on the road. Thus while the multitudes dropped under the fire which ever poured upon them from the high rocks which lined the Pass, many, very many, perished from the cold, lying down at night in their bed of snow, and rising not again at morning dawn. At last, when bullet, sword, and cold had ended the struggles of almost all the native soldiers and camp-followers, the miserable remnant of the force, consisting mainly of men of the Forty-fourth, a few Artillery men, and a score or so of officers, and numbering, all told, barely a hundred fighting men, with two or three hundred camp-followers, reached the vicinity of Gundamuk, or at least a spot some eight miles from our present camp. The day before they had crossed the stream called the Surkh Ab, or "Red Water," fighting hand-to-hand with their foe for the passage. And now what more could they do? Strength was gone, and hope was almost dead. Six officers were chosen and sent to ride as hard as their miserable ponies would carry them to Jellalabad, some thirty-five miles off, where Sale and Havelock were gallantly holding out, to seek help. It was a forlorn hope, for the journey was fraught with fearful peril. How could six worn-out men ever anticipate a safe ride through a wild country swarming with fierce tribesmen?

[Shayesta]

@Alchemist
Not just the British, he claimed many times that Pukhtoons haven't fought any power in the past, and all we did is serve foreign interest, and only people who destroyed Afghanistan are us Pukhtoons, and what bullsh*t not. I am surprised you followed his replies and easily pointed out other member's quotations but missed his?:

You think you really have defeated your past masters but you are not able to see how reality looks like. All your pride is based on a fake story, on a fake myth that Pashtun nationalists propagated in the 20s and 30s of the last century.

They were never rulers, except during Mirwais and Ahmad Shah and Timur .. all others were nothing else than tools for foreigners who ruled the country from/via ''their first hand''. but even Timur and Ahmad Shah couldn´t rule without ''Ghali'', ''Shia'' ''anti-Afghan'' ''Qazals''

We had our wars but you betrayed us under the name Pakistan, Arabs, ISI, Taliban, ''brothership'', ''equality'' and would even support Taliban and any kind of terrorist just because they are Pashtuns. Go take a book and read some real facts about Afghanistan´s past. Maybe you will see that there were non-Pashtuns beating not only Pashtuns but many more not only one time but 1000 times.

That´s why non-Pashtuns differ from Pashtuns in the way of Mahzab e Dini. You are the radical one and we are the mind-open and moderate one. You are suiciders, we are elitists, you are mine creater we are future creater.

100 years ago your defeat and cowardice was not different.

You don't need to be a genius to work out what he means with words like 'your masters', or 'your defeat 100 year ago', or 'you betrayed us for foreigners', or 'you are the destroyer while we are the maker'. Nor does he literally need to make those quotes, his view is just shining out right there! I understand you want to defend him and want to agree with him, but you yourself need to use half the logic you tell us to use.

And what I wanted to prove with those sources is that the British were on war with us, they have imprisoned our people, they have invaded our land several times, and nor did those British civilians in Kabul came 'just' to make a living there. And that very same Wiki also claims that many historians couldn't confirm such slaughtering actually took place, Wiki hasn't got a single stand on this issue you see. With admittance that, may those innocent families indeed have been slaughtered they were, then I won't defend their massacre. And once again, that wasn't the main point of my and Kabulzada's discussion, this is just another attempt by him to change the subject. Again.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Kabulzada; thinks his ancestors rescued themselves when their women were having sex with British Soldiers in Kabul; while their husbands sat around benamous and weak until Akbar Khan came. with Pashtun tribes to help them.

[Shayesta]

^ Such inappropriate use of language really isn't need, Scimitar. No matter how much freedom women of Kabul enjoyed, many original Kabulis (I am not speaking about the immigrants since past few decades) were people of respect and knowledge. They have maintained a very healthy lifestyle and the very same reason why people from various areas Kabulized in a jiffy was because of the accepting and warm society of Kabul, so please keep politics and women separate from each other.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Not only is it needed, it's the Truth; it's the painful truth and one which highlights precisely what sort of disgraceful fallacy and distortion of history being presented on these pages.

This isn't about freedom of Kabul women; we're talking about how Kabulzada's ancestors sat idly, weak and disenfranchized and most of all AFRAID, to fight the British whom they claim Pashtuns were slaves of; even though their wives were having intimiate relations with them. Clearly if such things were accepted freedoms, then Kabulzada's ancestors wouldn't have been frustrated and in despair over what was happening.

Let's stop trying to divert focus from that; and into a "Kabul enjoyed freedom" because first of all; Immorality is NOT freedom; even if you're allowed to do it, and second of all these notions were manufactured by the British Imperialists; it's best to break free out of Imperialized/Colonized mindset.

[Shayesta]

^ You don't even know where Kabulzada is originally from, nor have you provided any sources for your claims. Kabulzada can say all he wants, claim all he wants, but next to his fairytales he needs to provide sources for our 'slavery' and 'cowardliness' and our 'blahdi blah'. Same-wise even we would need to provide sources for whatever we claim regarding any culture and any history.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Well let's call a spade a spade

will you agree that Kabulzada, is trying to propagate Tajik Nationalism? Of course

and during 1843, Kabul was Tajiks ruled over by Pashtuns. Pashtuns did not start making large scale inhabitation of Kabul until somewhat later.

What's evident here is Kabulzadas false portrayal of Tajiks as having a national struggle against Pashtun hegemony is farcical and using these situations to portray Tajiks and Pashtuns in a historically inaccurate way is how he is trying to reinforce that. Hence it is important to note that in many situations such as the one of the Revolt of Kabul. The Tajiks who Kabulzada is trying to represent, did quite the opposite of what he thinks they did.