Ghilzai vs. Durrani?

[ScimitarXEdge]

biological evolution continues onto social evolution. you think you know everything so you stopped learning.

that's very true but this does not highlight any premise of biological evolution in context to social evolution ....so you're making a red herring.

If I stopped learning I wouldn't have been able to hone in on your tangent.

[sanman]

Well, the problem is that whomever the British conquered, they were able to control and manipulate. Especially by cutting deals with any corrupt local chief they could find. In this way, the British could create political differences they could exploit.

Those who were still unconquered by the British were independent of British control. So that's why the British eventually had to negotiate the Durand Line with them. The fake artificial imaginary line, based on who the British could control.

[ScimitarXEdge]

tribal conflict yes
but not in politics. when you are trying to make a confederation, you must structure it so as there is no divide and everyone agrees to it. If it wasnt a myth, than ahmed shah durrani would not have succeeded in uniting the tribes.

the current conflict in afghanistan has nothing to do with the ghilzai vs durrani. it is from the result of the break down of the confederation that ahmed shah durrani created.

yes in politics; we were wresting for power of Qandahar, He didn't succeed in uniting the tribes, even during his time rebellions of Ghilzais were common.

No one claimed conflict in Afghanistan exists because Ghilzais vs. Durranis but that the Ghilzai and Durrani thing is not a myth. My family are Ghaznichi because we were thrown out of Qandahar trying to gain control of Qandahar. So you're wrong on each and every measure we have discussed

You're trying to discuss stuff you haven't any knowledge of.

[sanman]

I think social evolution happens through the mind, whereas biological evolution only happens in the flesh (DNA, cells, etc). And biological evolution takes a very long time to happen, and is very gradual. Social evolution happens through communication and spread of knowledge, and discovery of new knowledge. Like we can say that chatting online on this forum is part of social evolution, but computers have nothing to do with biology.

[khushal]

so your're saying Indians aren't responsible for what Mughals did?

Thanks because that is precisely my point

so we sacked their homes.....now they resent us...moving on

your delusional for thinking this conflict has anything to do with the past, it is about pakistan defending itself from indian influence. and your immoral for thinking it makes it right.

[ScimitarXEdge]

That's true as well, but social evolution does parallel certain evolutionary adaptations for example organization into societies as we have now is due to the development of the cognitive ability of time binding, which is something the brain adapted.

either way the way Khushal was trying to lateralize social evolution with biological evolution; that somehow the sacking of India was some sort of evolutionary event, was completely and pathetically incorrect.

[ScimitarXEdge]

your delusional for thinking this conflict has anything to do with the past, it is about pakistan defending itself from indian influence. and your immoral for thinking it makes it right.

I think it has everything to do with the past as the past forges the present. Pakistan is trying to thwart HINDU Indian dominance, they'd have no problem if India ceded to Pakistan, Pakistan is simply Indic MUslim society., minus Bangladesh.

Pashtuns hate the fact Punjabis have the upper hand over us because we see them as our inferiors, people we once conquered and took concubines from. Otherwise we'd extol them.

[khushal]

yes in politics; we were wresting for power of Qandahar, He didn't succeed in uniting the tribes, even during his time rebellions of Ghilzais were common.

No one claimed conflict in Afghanistan exists because Ghilzais vs. Durranis but that the Ghilzai and Durrani thing is not a myth. My family are Ghaznichi because we were thrown out of Qandahar trying to gain control of Qandahar. So you're wrong on each and every measure we have discussed

You're trying to discuss stuff you haven't any knowledge of.

hahahahahaha, dont make me laugh.
people migrated from quandahar because of a lack of resources. you either have to fight and kill or you have to migrate, fight or flight scenerio. why do you think there is a huge population in places with abundant resources like the panjab. why do you think there are millions of people claiming pashtun ancestory in the indian subconinent. you think those people migrated because of durrani vs ghilzai.

even your father and myself have migrated from a place that has no resources and very difficult to survive to a place where there is abundant amount of resources and very easy to survive. your may blame the durranis for the migration but it really has nothing to do with that.

[khushal]

I think it has everything to do with the past as the past forges the present. Pakistan is trying to thwart HINDU Indian dominance, they'd have no problem if India ceded to Pakistan, Pakistan is simply Indic MUslim society., minus Bangladesh.

Pashtuns hate the fact Punjabis have the upper hand over us because we see them as our inferiors, people we once conquered and took concubines from. Otherwise we'd extol them.

where are you getting this info from that pashtun resent that panjabis have the upper hand. If its from the nationalist, there opinion is a mere minority and they resent it because they are the ones who are the most sub serviant to the panjabis.

Most Pashtuns want to be left alone and most of the pak army involved in FATA are Pashtuns themselves, don't have any ambition to have the upper hand and rule Panjab. Past Pashtun leaders pillaged the subcontinent because of resources. nobody can ever ignore the subcontinent when it is there for the taking.

[ScimitarXEdge]

yeah I don't see anything about limited resources, especially considering Ghilzais were the former rulers of Qandahar.

Apparently you're in denial of any reality that doesn't serve your ideological predispositions. I thought you're objective?

[ScimitarXEdge]

where are you getting this info from that pashtun resent that panjabis have the upper hand. If its from the nationalist, there opinion is a mere minority and they resent it because they are the ones who are the most sub serviant to the panjabis.

Most Pashtuns want to be left alone and most of the pak army involved in FATA are Pashtuns themselves, don't have any ambition to have the upper hand and rule Panjab. Past Pashtun leaders pillaged the subcontinent because of resources. nobody can ever ignore the subcontinent when it is there for the taking.

I get it from the traditional pashtun culture which loathes Indian people as inferior beings.

[sanman]

Here - read this latest article:

Ehsan Azari Stanizai: Pakistan's Terror Problem is Beyond the Taliban

Especially note the parts in bold:

Since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, Pakistan has followed a destructive policy towards its neighboring country in order to achieve four aims:
Firstly, to use the war on terror as a camouflage for Pakistan's own internal wars: a communal war in Karachi, a separatist war in Baluchistan and a war against the Pakistani military in the Pashtun tribal area.
Secondly, to entrap Afghanistan into Taliban's ideological straitjacket. Pakistan's covert backing of the Islamic militants, dragged out the Afghan war too long and inflicted massive Afghan and Western casualties.
Thirdly, to use the Afghan Taliban as a free army for suppressing Pashtun and Baluchi nationalism within Pakistan.
Fourth, as part of its contingency plan to use the Taliban against India.

These are the basic motivations of the Punjabi-dominated military who run the country.
They have to keep the Pashtuns down, along with the Baluchi tribes, because tribal divisions are slowly and naturally disappearing over time, due to the influence of modernization, migration, etc. This then poses a threat of ethnic groups organizing to demand their full rights, and potentially posing a challenge to the Punjabi-dominated Pak govt.

It's more important for Pak govt to keep Pashtuns in a perpetual state of war. Meanwhile, ISI can carry out abductions and shootings of Baluchi people to keep them terrified and submissive.

[khushal]

@schimitar,
your article also states that pakistan started to sponser ghilzai ascendancy over the durranis. didnt pakistan supported hekmatyar, a ghilzai against taraki, a ghilzai, babruk, a ghilzai, najibullah, a ghilzai. Didnt pakistan also support mullah omar, a ghilzai, against hekmatyar who again is also a ghilzai.

here is the questta shura leadership tribal affiliation
its about half and half
http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/...ta%20Shura.pdf

the afghan governmnet leadership also has durrani and ghilzai not to mention pashtun from other tribes

I still dont see this durrani vs ghilzai in politics.

[ScimitarXEdge]

THat's a tangential issue


we're talking about Historical Ghilzai/Durrani rivalry.

[khushal]

THat's a tangential issue


we're talking about Historical Ghilzai/Durrani rivalry.

Mr. Carlo was talking about recent rivalry,

but the author of your article is an idiot. If the durranis had power to kick out the ghilzais out of kandahar, then why are there so many ghilzi in kandahar today. Also why did Abdur rahman, a durrani, give support to the ghilzai to colonize kunduz. the durranis crucial support came from the kuchis who are ghilzi. One of the reason that the durrani moved the capital from kandahar to kabul was because of tribal conflict in kandahar. administration of the empire was difficult from a unstable city. It was not political.
even historically, it does not make sense.