Awami National Party

[tor_khan]

BarakzaiAbdali -

What do you make of Gulalai Khan's interview in Teri McCluhan's Bacha Khan documentary where she said that her Grandfather asked to be buried in Jalalabad because he believed that "one day all this will be one"? Isn't that evidence of Bacha Khan's support for unity of lar/bar?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

BarakzaiAbdali -

What do you make of Gulalai Khan's interview in Teri McCluhan's Bacha Khan documentary where she said that her Grandfather asked to be buried in Jalalabad because he believed that "one day all this will be one"? Isn't that evidence of Bacha Khan's support for unity of lar/bar?

His thought processes could have evolved, but the text itself references Bacha Khan himself. The argument being put forth by the paper author on Pashtun Nationalism in the NWFP, that references the Anwar text indicates that Bacha Khan evolved from being a local Khan leader of KK to Indian National Congress rep dependent on Ghandi for an identity and message and initially deeply in tune with the united india concept to an autonomous Pashtun region within Pakistan.

Regarding Raja Anwar, he had no ties to the Taliban or the Muj forces and released the book before his support of the female Bhutto. Prior to that, he was a member of Zul Fikaar, given refuge in Kabul by Najibullah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Anwar

To date, teh book has not come under fire for any issues regarding factual bases.

The possibility could have been that Bacha Khan evolved such thought processes thereafter (but his actions do not support this). Remmeber, the author of the paper on pashtun nationalism noted the deep irony in this facet of Pashtun nationalism thought processes.

I find it appalling that there is such widespread sanctification regarding Ghaffar Khan, in an attempt to place him in the halls of honor with Mir Wais Neka, Khushaal Khan Khattak, and Ahmad Shah Baba.

I personally would not want to be led by someone who, willy nilly, and factually had the following political trajectory:

1. Khudai Khidmatagaar --->
2. Standing by Nehru for a United India. Think about it... this is deeply problematic... where is Bacha Khan's proof that an autonomous Indian state would ever be willing to cleave off the NWFP and hand it over to Afghanistan (mind you there is no proof he was wanting this to happen in the initial). --->
3. Requesting an autonomous Pashtun region within Pakistan, perhaps, similar to FATA --->
4. Potentially deciding, if we take his daughter's quote at face value, that loya Afghanistan was the way to go.

This is in stark opposition to Ahmad Shah Abdali's evolution
1. Abdali Khan concerned with Sadozai fortunes locally
2. Imprisoned by Ghilzai by Hassan Hotak
3. Still understanding that Ashraf Hotak had accomplished a alot for Pashtun ascendency (hence his verse "da farid au the Ashraf daur ba byaa shee"
4. Freed by sunni Nadir shah, the now dominant power in Qandahar --> taking lands in teh vale of Kandahar for Abdali ascendency
5. Nadir dies and Ahmad Shah Abdali realizes the moment is ripe with possibilities
6. He writes in his famous poems that I can load up here that Ghilzai and Abdali are no different and they must hang together or suffer peril with division.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

There was a paper Admin Khan posted months ago and I cannot find it... it discussed the politics of Pakistan and was written by a professor in Australia, I believe. He discussed how the Bacha Khan family has become a part of the Pakistani state mechanism in so many ways. It discusses this same manner of how ANP is an imbedded state supporting, feudal family sustaining party just as PPP is.

As I said, my goal is not offend Bacha Khan supporters or to make people feel uncomfortable.

What I admire about American soceity is that you can objectively discuss George Washington's merits and deficits if you do it respectfully.

With political discussion in the Muslim world, folks have sanctified these leaders (e.g. Ataturk) to the point where to discuss these leader's pitfalls is considered a great offense.

I could understand if a Christian gets upset if Saint Paul or Simon is insulted or criticized... just as I can understand if we dont use evidence basis to discuss the decisions of Sahabaa decisions and end up making Muslims feel insulted.

But these are not religious figures. Even then, there is really nothing wrong with discussing the politics of these folks even in a respectful way. For instance, if an informed discussion is being had of Ali (R) and Abu Musa Al Ashari (R) and various strategic decisions at the Battle of Siffin... I dont think folks should get offended of disgusted as this discourse leads to us learning more about these amazing people.

In fact, I do not get upset when folks discuss mistakes they think Ahmad Shah Baba might have made.

So as I said, my qualm is not with Bacha Khan the man himself, but rather with the notion that he was for A) Loya Afghanistan (evidence is contrary to this - read above) B) a capable leader with a vision.

In his own personal life, he may have been an amazing father, amazing religious man, amazing scientist on par with Einstein... these things do not concern me.

What concerns me is his public discourse and his directionality.

This does not take away from the fact that he is an established Pashtun personality and that he will very likely be remembered in the pantheon of Pashtun heroism, for better or worse.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Abdali's famed poem envisioning unity of Ghilzai and Abdali... as opposed to doing what Abdul Razzaq Khan is doing in Qandahar now (i.e. assuming that its time for Achakzai to get revenge on Noorzai). He says 'Towla yaw dhee kah Ghalzai ka Abdali dhee' - fascinating thing here is he uses the old term for the Abdalis... the slang term... Awdaalyaan.

[graveyardofempires]

BarakzaiAbdali wrora

this poem has so much relevance in nowadays situation of Afghans.

what an inspiring king/Emperor/poet

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

His thought processes could have evolved, but the text itself references Bacha Khan himself. The argument being put forth by the paper author on Pashtun Nationalism in the NWFP, that references the Anwar text indicates that Bacha Khan evolved from being a local Khan leader of KK to Indian National Congress rep dependent on Ghandi for an identity and message and initially deeply in tune with the united india concept to an autonomous Pashtun region within Pakistan.

Regarding Raja Anwar, he had no ties to the Taliban or the Muj forces and released the book before his support of the female Bhutto. Prior to that, he was a member of Zul Fikaar, given refuge in Kabul by Najibullah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Anwar

To date, teh book has not come under fire for any issues regarding factual bases.

The possibility could have been that Bacha Khan evolved such thought processes thereafter (but his actions do not support this). Remmeber, the author of the paper on pashtun nationalism noted the deep irony in this facet of Pashtun nationalism thought processes.

The fact remains that this lone author is stating something that is contradictory to everything that Bachaa Khan ever stood for. Moreover, Bachaa Khan never said anything even similar to this throughout his life and therefore, the authenticity of this quote is highly questionable at best or it must have been taken out of context.

I find it appalling that there is such widespread sanctification regarding Ghaffar Khan, in an attempt to place him in the halls of honor with Mir Wais Neka, Khushaal Khan Khattak, and Ahmad Shah Baba.

Bachaa Khan did not manage to unite all the Pashtun tribes like Ahmed Shah Baba nor did he conquer Iran. But like Khushal Khan, his struggle eventually failed - he is, therefore, remembered for his reforms and his work to promote education, women's rights, moderation, peace and toleration amongst Pashtuns. For his nonviolent struggle for the sake of his people and against the British Empire and its artificially-conceived offspring, Pakistan, Bachaa Khan spent almost half his life in prison. In return, he didn't get to be the President of Pakistan nor did he acquire property in California or London.

During the late 80s, the MQM began killing Pashtuns in Karachi and the Pashtuns responded in kind. In order to play his role in bringing peace to the city, Bachaa Khan, who was now more than 80 years old, traveled to Karachi in a third-class train cabin and his arrival calmed the situation.

The man wasn't a saint nor was he a huge achiever. He couldn't get an independent state, he couldn't rejoin Afghanistan and the influence of his reforms is still limited. If anything, his ideas were far too advanced for his people - even today. But he was nothing short of a great man nonetheless, dwarfing Jinnah and many others.

Ahmed Shah Baba is the only Pashtun to unify all the tribes and create a Pashun state. In that regard, no other Pashtun in history can be compared to him, least of all Bachaa Khan. But just like Khushal Khan, Pir Roshan and Sher Shah Suri, he played his part and his role in the Pashtun story cannot and must not be trivialized.

I personally would not want to be led by someone who, willy nilly, and factually had the following political trajectory:

1. Khudai Khidmatagaar --->
2. Standing by Nehru for a United India. Think about it... this is deeply problematic... where is Bacha Khan's proof that an autonomous Indian state would ever be willing to cleave off the NWFP and hand it over to Afghanistan (mind you there is no proof he was wanting this to happen in the initial). --->
3. Requesting an autonomous Pashtun region within Pakistan, perhaps, similar to FATA --->
4. Potentially deciding, if we take his daughter's quote at face value, that loya Afghanistan was the way to go.

2. Openly talking about rejoining Afghanistan or becoming independent during the British colonial period would have amounted to nothing short of sedition and treason. And Bachaa Khan, like countless others, opposed the idea of partitioning India on the basis of religion as a matter of principle. Furthermore, as he has written in his autobiography, he realized that in a Pakistan, his people would become subservient to a Punjabi majority. When Congress accepted the partition plans, he told them that they had thrown his people to the wolves.

Then the question arises - but a united India would have never allowed the NWFP to break free. And the answer is, what choice did Bachaa Khan have? During the time of the British empire, Afghanistan was lucky to maintain whatever little it did of its territory and sovereignty - Iran wanted Herat, the Russians and then the Soviets wanted to cross the Amu Darya and the British tried thrice to crush Kabul altogether. Therefore, there was no active movement in Afghanistan at the grassroots level to once again become one with the people on the west of the Durrand Line. So stout and reliable support from Kabul was never really an option. Secondly, at the grassroots level in NWFP, there was no serious movement for either independence or rejoining Afghanistan. The British had very successfully alienated Pashtun politics to specific areas with FATA acting like a wall that prevented Kabul's reforms to penetrate into Peshawar and viceversa. The alternative to supporting a united India was damning NWFP to Pakistan forever.

In fact, even during the 1947 referrendum, the Khudai Khidmatgaran asked for a third option of becoming independent because they knew that the option for re-merging with Afghanistan would be completely unacceptable to the British Raj. Just think about it - an NWFP on its own is not even a viable state.


3. Pashtun autonomy has always been the number one demand for even the most watered-down nationalists. I don't see much wrong in that.



4. To believe that Bachaa Khan did not stand for lar ao bar Pashtun unity is not to understand the man at all. In fact, the very notion of Pashtun nationalism is dumb and lame without the aim of uniting all the people between the Amu and Abaseen.


If you have time, I would highly recommend Bachaa Khan's "Zma zhwand ao jado-jehad" to you. It will change the way you think about him.

There was a paper Admin Khan posted months ago and I cannot find it... it discussed the politics of Pakistan and was written by a professor in Australia, I believe. He discussed how the Bacha Khan family has become a part of the Pakistani state mechanism in so many ways. It discusses this same manner of how ANP is an imbedded state supporting, feudal family sustaining party just as PPP is.

As I said, my goal is not offend Bacha Khan supporters or to make people feel uncomfortable.

What I admire about American soceity is that you can objectively discuss George Washington's merits and deficits if you do it respectfully.

With political discussion in the Muslim world, folks have sanctified these leaders (e.g. Ataturk) to the point where to discuss these leader's pitfalls is considered a great offense.

I could understand if a Christian gets upset if Saint Paul or Simon is insulted or criticized... just as I can understand if we dont use evidence basis to discuss the decisions of Sahabaa decisions and end up making Muslims feel insulted.

But these are not religious figures. Even then, there is really nothing wrong with discussing the politics of these folks even in a respectful way. For instance, if an informed discussion is being had of Ali (R) and Abu Musa Al Ashari (R) and various strategic decisions at the Battle of Siffin... I dont think folks should get offended of disgusted as this discourse leads to us learning more about these amazing people.

In fact, I do not get upset when folks discuss mistakes they think Ahmad Shah Baba might have made.

So as I said, my qualm is not with Bacha Khan the man himself, but rather with the notion that he was for A) Loya Afghanistan (evidence is contrary to this - read above) B) a capable leader with a vision.

In his own personal life, he may have been an amazing father, amazing religious man, amazing scientist on par with Einstein... these things do not concern me.

What concerns me is his public discourse and his directionality.

This does not take away from the fact that he is an established Pashtun personality and that he will very likely be remembered in the pantheon of Pashtun heroism, for better or worse.

I agree, every personality should be criticized no matter how dear they are to people. In Pakistan, our "Muslim heroes" are idealized and all the Muslim kings are made to look like saints. I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach to learning and teaching history.

By the way, a great many Pashtana on the east of the Durrand Line, even during Bachaa Khan's time, were and are indifferent about the Loy Afghanistan idea. They are so mostly because they are ignorant of Pashtun history, they are bombarded with Pakistani state propaganda since they are born and because we cannot expect the rank and file to understand the dynamics of states and nations and what not. But that's beside the point. My point is that even today, the majority of lar ao bar Pashtana are indifferent to Loy Afghanistan.

[Toramana]

As a Pan-Islamist and member of Islamic Brotherhood (Akhwanul Mulimin), we know Barakzai Abdali is linked with his counter-parts in Pakistan like Hamid Gul, General Asad Durrani, Rustam Shah Momand, and other Pan-Islamists of the extreme right. And like these other Pan-Islamist, believe that the task of the unification of Muslim Ummah can be started with the merger of Afghanistan with Pakistan first as a vassal state and ultimately as a fifth province.

All Pan-Islamists whether Gulbuddin, Mullah Omar, Dr. Israr, Hamid Gul, Imran Khan, etc. of Pakistan-Afghanistan have the same vision for unification of Muslim Ummah. In this vision, Pakistan is the pivotal and central point.

As is evident, Barakzai also has pro-Pakistan sympathies. And that is understandable for his famillial connections to Pakistan.

All Pan-Islamists of Pakistan and their lackeys in Afghanistan are rabbidly anti-ANP and anti-PMAP and overall anti-Pashtun nationalism. And one can understand the reason. The Pan-Islamist ideologies that have originated in Indian Muslim societies consider the suppression and dilution of Pasahtun Culture and identity necessary for the expansion of these ideologies and consolidation of Pakistan-centered Muslim brotherhood (Pakistan fares centrally in these Pan-Islamist views defined as an ideological state).

The reason is obvious. ANP and PMAP lay claim to that land and talk of Pashtun identity, culture, rights, and political sovereignty. For this reason, ANP and PMAP and Pashtun nationalists are invariably hated by Pan-Islamists and Pakistani nationalists. And they leave no stone unturned to harm Pashtun nationalist movement.

But one can see the chicanery with which Barakzai would build his arguments. Often he quotes one weak source in favour of his argument contrary to hundreds of sources against his argument. For example, in the present case, he is quoting that one dubious sentence from Raja Anwar's post who was a Punjabi communist nationlist ignoring hundreds if not thousands of sources that provide evidence to the contrary i.e., Pashtun nationalists empathy with Afghanistan not to mention Bacha Khan's will to be burried in Jalalabad as laying ground Pashtun unification.

And Bacha Khan is still castigated for that act by all Pakistani nationalists formost by orthodox Akhwanis e.g. Jummath-i-Islami, General Hamid Gul, etc. whose ideologiy Barakzai shares.

This indicates the origin of propaganda against Bacha Khan.

I have heard the families of a lot of pro-Pak Afghans (Afghan Pakistanis or Pakistani Afghans) are living in Quetta under ISI patronage.

[tor_khan]

One point that we have to bear in mind Barakzai - and without this sounding like I am over sanctifying someone - Bacha Khan was considered a traitor to Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf uses that very word in the film) and his contribution to the anti-Raj movement has been deleted/reduced from the Pakistani textbook version of history.

The Bacha Khan film, I believe is a very important document for redressing some of this. I actually spoke with Teri McCluhan (the director) after the screening at the Middle East Film Festival and she said that there could be no public discourse about Bacha Khan in Pakistan because his ideas challenged the very basis on which Pakistan stood. As a result young people (including Pashtoons) in Pakistan know very little about Bacha Khan. If the Pashtoons in Pakistan are not even in a position to discuss the merits/pitfalls of what Bacha Khan stood for because the texts are never brought forth, this is not exactly the 'fault' of Bacha Khan. If anything, he sensed that Pashtoons would not fair well in Pakistan.

For that reason alone Teri McCluhan was absolutely insistent that the film get as wide a distribution as possible. I think that knowing this makes a difference as to what can/can not be said about him because as much as we over sanctify people in the Muslim world, we equally 'excommunicate' them if their ideas don't fit. This is certainly true of Pakistan if you take the examples of Jinnah and Bacha Khan.

For instance, during Ms McCluhan's time in Pakistan, interviews in which people spoke about him were then screened by the authorities to pick up on anything that may be considered anti state - and in her words to me she said to mention Bacha Khan's ideas on Pashtoon Nationalism favourably was "akin to high treason".

It is little wonder that the ANP are not really representative, not that I have much interest for party politics of most flavours. That I believe is quite different to campaigning or being led my principles.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The fact remains that this lone author is stating something that is contradictory to everything that Bachaa Khan ever stood for. Moreover, Bachaa Khan never said anything even similar to this throughout his life and therefore, the authenticity of this quote is highly questionable at best or it must have been taken out of context.





Bachaa Khan did not manage to unite all the Pashtun tribes like Ahmed Shah Baba nor did he conquer Iran. But like Khushal Khan, his struggle eventually failed - he is, therefore, remembered for his reforms and his work to promote education, women's rights, moderation, peace and toleration amongst Pashtuns. For his nonviolent struggle for the sake of his people and against the British Empire and its artificially-conceived offspring, Pakistan, Bachaa Khan spent almost half his life in prison. In return, he didn't get to be the President of Pakistan nor did he acquire property in California or London.

During the late 80s, the MQM began killing Pashtuns in Karachi and the Pashtuns responded in kind. In order to play his role in bringing peace to the city, Bachaa Khan, who was now more than 80 years old, traveled to Karachi in a third-class train cabin and his arrival calmed the situation.

The man wasn't a saint nor was he a huge achiever. He couldn't get an independent state, he couldn't rejoin Afghanistan and the influence of his reforms is still limited. If anything, his ideas were far too advanced for his people - even today. But he was nothing short of a great man nonetheless, dwarfing Jinnah and many others.

Ahmed Shah Baba is the only Pashtun to unify all the tribes and create a Pashun state. In that regard, no other Pashtun in history can be compared to him, least of all Bachaa Khan. But just like Khushal Khan, Pir Roshan and Sher Shah Suri, he played his part and his role in the Pashtun story cannot and must not be trivialized.





2. Openly talking about rejoining Afghanistan or becoming independent during the British colonial period would have amounted to nothing short of sedition and treason. And Bachaa Khan, like countless others, opposed the idea of partitioning India on the basis of religion as a matter of principle. Furthermore, as he has written in his autobiography, he realized that in a Pakistan, his people would become subservient to a Punjabi majority. When Congress accepted the partition plans, he told them that they had thrown his people to the wolves.

Then the question arises - but a united India would have never allowed the NWFP to break free. And the answer is, what choice did Bachaa Khan have? During the time of the British empire, Afghanistan was lucky to maintain whatever little it did of its territory and sovereignty - Iran wanted Herat, the Russians and then the Soviets wanted to cross the Amu Darya and the British tried thrice to crush Kabul altogether. Therefore, there was no active movement in Afghanistan at the grassroots level to once again become one with the people on the west of the Durrand Line. So stout and reliable support from Kabul was never really an option. Secondly, at the grassroots level in NWFP, there was no serious movement for either independence or rejoining Afghanistan. The British had very successfully alienated Pashtun politics to specific areas with FATA acting like a wall that prevented Kabul's reforms to penetrate into Peshawar and viceversa. The alternative to supporting a united India was damning NWFP to Pakistan forever.

In fact, even during the 1947 referrendum, the Khudai Khidmatgaran asked for a third option of becoming independent because they knew that the option for re-merging with Afghanistan would be completely unacceptable to the British Raj. Just think about it - an NWFP on its own is not even a viable state.


3. Pashtun autonomy has always been the number one demand for even the most watered-down nationalists. I don't see much wrong in that.



4. To believe that Bachaa Khan did not stand for lar ao bar Pashtun unity is not to understand the man at all. In fact, the very notion of Pashtun nationalism is dumb and lame without the aim of uniting all the people between the Amu and Abaseen.


If you have time, I would highly recommend Bachaa Khan's "Zma zhwand ao jado-jehad" to you. It will change the way you think about him.











I agree, every personality should be criticized no matter how dear they are to people. In Pakistan, our "Muslim heroes" are idealized and all the Muslim kings are made to look like saints. I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach to learning and teaching history.

By the way, a great many Pashtana on the east of the Durrand Line, even during Bachaa Khan's time, were and are indifferent about the Loy Afghanistan idea. They are so mostly because they are ignorant of Pashtun history, they are bombarded with Pakistani state propaganda since they are born and because we cannot expect the rank and file to understand the dynamics of states and nations and what not. But that's beside the point. My point is that even today, the majority of lar ao bar Pashtana are indifferent to Loy Afghanistan.

I wouldnt agree as the Asiatic Studies Paper that was published in a respected journal takes a balanced view on the subject. Its not a hit piece on Bacha Khan, as it praising certain personal attributes, but noting that a rather simple explanation for the ANP phenomena is exactly what as evidenced itself: pursuit of power as opposed to pursuit of the lofty goal of lar bar unity.

http://www.khyber.org/publications/p...ationalism.pdf

To simply state that the quote is untrue, desite the fact that the text by Anwar continues to be be one of the lead primary views into the functioning of the Najib government from a first hand particpant in Kabul is an assertion that has to be backed up by evidence, and we await your compilation of the evidence.

Furthermore, the easy peeling off his brother Khan Saheb seems to support the notion that the ANP movement, as the author here asserts, had no directionality or vision.

Also your theory conflicts with the fact that the man was willing to spend inordinate amounts of time in jail for the cause of autonomy for the current NWFP. To simply say that the British would not have entertained a resurgence of Afghan sentiments in the NWFP proper has Bacha Khan decided to pursue it doesnt jive with what he was willing to be stubborn about.

Also, the issue becomes the plebescite the British allowed Bacha Khan and his brother. The British said the two options were:
NWFP stays a part of India vs NWFP joins Pakistan

The Khan brothers were incensed and demanded the options be:
NWFP joints Pakistan vs NWFP goes autonomous.

One can see how confusing this stance would have been for the KK affiliate folk. On the one hand, all along Ghaffar Khan has rallied with Congress and his primary demand has been independence alongside Nehru with no mention of Pashtun independence at all... and yet on the other hand when the plebescite was proposed he backed off the unity with Congress line he had taken before.

As I said LZ, read the above paper. The author is actually very sympathetic to Bacha Khan and appears to speak highly of the man as you do in terms of personal accomplishments and traits... but take a very evidence based stance in regard to directionless leadership.

Also recall that the Afghanistan quote was made much later, in the 70s.

Ill make you a deal, Ill read the reference you made, since it sounds like a good read and you read the cited paper.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The fact remains that this lone author is stating something that is contradictory to everything that Bachaa Khan ever stood for. Moreover, Bachaa Khan never said anything even similar to this throughout his life and therefore, the authenticity of this quote is highly questionable at best or it must have been taken out of context.





Bachaa Khan did not manage to unite all the Pashtun tribes like Ahmed Shah Baba nor did he conquer Iran. But like Khushal Khan, his struggle eventually failed - he is, therefore, remembered for his reforms and his work to promote education, women's rights, moderation, peace and toleration amongst Pashtuns. For his nonviolent struggle for the sake of his people and against the British Empire and its artificially-conceived offspring, Pakistan, Bachaa Khan spent almost half his life in prison. In return, he didn't get to be the President of Pakistan nor did he acquire property in California or London.

During the late 80s, the MQM began killing Pashtuns in Karachi and the Pashtuns responded in kind. In order to play his role in bringing peace to the city, Bachaa Khan, who was now more than 80 years old, traveled to Karachi in a third-class train cabin and his arrival calmed the situation.

The man wasn't a saint nor was he a huge achiever. He couldn't get an independent state, he couldn't rejoin Afghanistan and the influence of his reforms is still limited. If anything, his ideas were far too advanced for his people - even today. But he was nothing short of a great man nonetheless, dwarfing Jinnah and many others.

Ahmed Shah Baba is the only Pashtun to unify all the tribes and create a Pashun state. In that regard, no other Pashtun in history can be compared to him, least of all Bachaa Khan. But just like Khushal Khan, Pir Roshan and Sher Shah Suri, he played his part and his role in the Pashtun story cannot and must not be trivialized.





2. Openly talking about rejoining Afghanistan or becoming independent during the British colonial period would have amounted to nothing short of sedition and treason. And Bachaa Khan, like countless others, opposed the idea of partitioning India on the basis of religion as a matter of principle. Furthermore, as he has written in his autobiography, he realized that in a Pakistan, his people would become subservient to a Punjabi majority. When Congress accepted the partition plans, he told them that they had thrown his people to the wolves.

Then the question arises - but a united India would have never allowed the NWFP to break free. And the answer is, what choice did Bachaa Khan have? During the time of the British empire, Afghanistan was lucky to maintain whatever little it did of its territory and sovereignty - Iran wanted Herat, the Russians and then the Soviets wanted to cross the Amu Darya and the British tried thrice to crush Kabul altogether. Therefore, there was no active movement in Afghanistan at the grassroots level to once again become one with the people on the west of the Durrand Line. So stout and reliable support from Kabul was never really an option. Secondly, at the grassroots level in NWFP, there was no serious movement for either independence or rejoining Afghanistan. The British had very successfully alienated Pashtun politics to specific areas with FATA acting like a wall that prevented Kabul's reforms to penetrate into Peshawar and viceversa. The alternative to supporting a united India was damning NWFP to Pakistan forever.

In fact, even during the 1947 referrendum, the Khudai Khidmatgaran asked for a third option of becoming independent because they knew that the option for re-merging with Afghanistan would be completely unacceptable to the British Raj. Just think about it - an NWFP on its own is not even a viable state.


3. Pashtun autonomy has always been the number one demand for even the most watered-down nationalists. I don't see much wrong in that.



4. To believe that Bachaa Khan did not stand for lar ao bar Pashtun unity is not to understand the man at all. In fact, the very notion of Pashtun nationalism is dumb and lame without the aim of uniting all the people between the Amu and Abaseen.


If you have time, I would highly recommend Bachaa Khan's "Zma zhwand ao jado-jehad" to you. It will change the way you think about him.











I agree, every personality should be criticized no matter how dear they are to people. In Pakistan, our "Muslim heroes" are idealized and all the Muslim kings are made to look like saints. I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach to learning and teaching history.

By the way, a great many Pashtana on the east of the Durrand Line, even during Bachaa Khan's time, were and are indifferent about the Loy Afghanistan idea. They are so mostly because they are ignorant of Pashtun history, they are bombarded with Pakistani state propaganda since they are born and because we cannot expect the rank and file to understand the dynamics of states and nations and what not. But that's beside the point. My point is that even today, the majority of lar ao bar Pashtana are indifferent to Loy Afghanistan.

Fully agree with hte last sentence here regarding the indifference and propagandizing. I met once Pashtun guy, a jovial old fellow who became incensed when I discussed the history of the region and told him about its historical affiliations. He somehow had simultaneous appreciation for Pervez Musharraf and Beneazir Bhutto... all likely due to the fact that propagandizing is much easier to do in the NWFP since there is at least some semblance of a communication system (TV) versus Afghanistan, where Petreus had found it hard to send out propaganda messages.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

One point that we have to bear in mind Barakzai - and without this sounding like I am over sanctifying someone - Bacha Khan was considered a traitor to Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf uses that very word in the film) and his contribution to the anti-Raj movement has been deleted/reduced from the Pakistani textbook version of history.

The Bacha Khan film, I believe is a very important document for redressing some of this. I actually spoke with Teri McCluhan (the director) after the screening at the Middle East Film Festival and she said that there could be no public discourse about Bacha Khan in Pakistan because his ideas challenged the very basis on which Pakistan stood. As a result young people (including Pashtoons) in Pakistan know very little about Bacha Khan. If the Pashtoons in Pakistan are not even in a position to discuss the merits/pitfalls of what Bacha Khan stood for because the texts are never brought forth, this is not exactly the 'fault' of Bacha Khan. If anything, he sensed that Pashtoons would not fair well in Pakistan.

For that reason alone Teri McCluhan was absolutely insistent that the film get as wide a distribution as possible. I think that knowing this makes a difference as to what can/can not be said about him because as much as we over sanctify people in the Muslim world, we equally 'excommunicate' them if their ideas don't fit. This is certainly true of Pakistan if you take the examples of Jinnah and Bacha Khan.

For instance, during Ms McCluhan's time in Pakistan, interviews in which people spoke about him were then screened by the authorities to pick up on anything that may be considered anti state - and in her words to me she said to mention Bacha Khan's ideas on Pashtoon Nationalism favourably was "akin to high treason".

It is little wonder that the ANP are not really representative, not that I have much interest for party politics of most flavours. That I believe is quite different to campaigning or being led my principles.

I think as a person, Bacha Khan had many idealized visions (many of which were good) about authentic Pashto culture. In fact, I have read thathe was conflicted with Ghani Khan's own views after Ghani's exposure to the West.

I also agree.. the Asiatic study paper above notes that the Pakistani state was incensed and actually did ANP a service by cracking down so intensely on a nonthreat.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

As a Pan-Islamist and member of Islamic Brotherhood (Akhwanul Mulimin), we know Barakzai Abdali is linked with his counter-parts in Pakistan like Hamid Gul, General Asad Durrani, Rustam Shah Momand, and other Pan-Islamists of the extreme right. And like these other Pan-Islamist, believe that the task of the unification of Muslim Ummah can be started with the merger of Afghanistan with Pakistan first as a vassal state and ultimately as a fifth province.

All Pan-Islamists whether Gulbuddin, Mullah Omar, Dr. Israr, Hamid Gul, Imran Khan, etc. of Pakistan-Afghanistan have the same vision for unification of Muslim Ummah. In this vision, Pakistan is the pivotal and central point.

As is evident, Barakzai also has pro-Pakistan sympathies. And that is understandable for his famillial connections to Pakistan.

All Pan-Islamists of Pakistan and their lackeys in Afghanistan are rabbidly anti-ANP and anti-PMAP and overall anti-Pashtun nationalism. And one can understand the reason. The Pan-Islamist ideologies that have originated in Indian Muslim societies consider the suppression and dilution of Pasahtun Culture and identity necessary for the expansion of these ideologies and consolidation of Pakistan-centered Muslim brotherhood (Pakistan fares centrally in these Pan-Islamist views defined as an ideological state).

The reason is obvious. ANP and PMAP lay claim to that land and talk of Pashtun identity, culture, rights, and political sovereignty. For this reason, ANP and PMAP and Pashtun nationalists are invariably hated by Pan-Islamists and Pakistani nationalists. And they leave no stone unturned to harm Pashtun nationalist movement.

But one can see the chicanery with which Barakzai would build his arguments. Often he quotes one weak source in favour of his argument contrary to hundreds of sources against his argument. For example, in the present case, he is quoting that one dubious sentence from Raja Anwar's post who was a Punjabi communist nationlist ignoring hundreds if not thousands of sources that provide evidence to the contrary i.e., Pashtun nationalists empathy with Afghanistan not to mention Bacha Khan's will to be burried in Jalalabad as a laying ground Pashtun unification.

And Bacha Khan is still castigated for that act by all Pakistani nationalists formost by orthodox Akhwanis e.g. Jummath-i-Islami, General Hamid Gul, etc. whose ideologiy Barakzai shares.

This indicates the origin of propaganda against Bacha Khan.

I have heard the families of a lot of pro-Pak Afghans (Afghan Pakistanis or Pakistani Afghans) are living in Quetta under ISI patronage.

Lol, its not simply a weak source because you say it is. In fact, he opposed the islamisization of Afghanistan and pakistan and was one with Zul Fikaar and was vehemently Anti Zia. The time in which he wrote the book corresponded closely with his activities.

You guys and the Christian and Muslim Prosyletizers are the same Toramana... you have talking points and you attempt to "size folks up." So basically, you are grabbing the dark to try and categorize my view.

Why? Because in your red hat sessions you guys, like proselityzers are given talking points (breath of info without debt).

its no different than when someone criticizes the republican platform or the democrat platform in America and are called unpatriotic or backwards depending on who you talk about.

The rest of us do not live in these close minded MMA versus ANP vs PMAP models that you guys are programmed to follow like automaton like algorithms.

Regarding ummah, your statement is invalidated. In fact, islamic scholars note that Umar Bin Al Khattab said that a man should know his forefathers. Its also a sin in Islamic theology to claim ancestory that is not one's own. Pride in one's tribe and celebration of one's identity is not an issue at all in Islam.

This concept is no different than Americans in Alabama being intensely proud of their state:

Sweet Home Alabama - YouTube

But still understanding that they were and are part of a greater whole (the USA).

By this same token, the ANP Nazi Socialists are paranoid about the rise of a movement that does exactly this (respects identity but demands sacrifice for the greater whole) because it strips them of their provincial khanate.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

One point that we have to bear in mind Barakzai - and without this sounding like I am over sanctifying someone - Bacha Khan was considered a traitor to Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf uses that very word in the film) and his contribution to the anti-Raj movement has been deleted/reduced from the Pakistani textbook version of history.

The Bacha Khan film, I believe is a very important document for redressing some of this. I actually spoke with Teri McCluhan (the director) after the screening at the Middle East Film Festival and she said that there could be no public discourse about Bacha Khan in Pakistan because his ideas challenged the very basis on which Pakistan stood. As a result young people (including Pashtoons) in Pakistan know very little about Bacha Khan. If the Pashtoons in Pakistan are not even in a position to discuss the merits/pitfalls of what Bacha Khan stood for because the texts are never brought forth, this is not exactly the 'fault' of Bacha Khan. If anything, he sensed that Pashtoons would not fair well in Pakistan.

For that reason alone Teri McCluhan was absolutely insistent that the film get as wide a distribution as possible. I think that knowing this makes a difference as to what can/can not be said about him because as much as we over sanctify people in the Muslim world, we equally 'excommunicate' them if their ideas don't fit. This is certainly true of Pakistan if you take the examples of Jinnah and Bacha Khan.

For instance, during Ms McCluhan's time in Pakistan, interviews in which people spoke about him were then screened by the authorities to pick up on anything that may be considered anti state - and in her words to me she said to mention Bacha Khan's ideas on Pashtoon Nationalism favourably was "akin to high treason".

It is little wonder that the ANP are not really representative, not that I have much interest for party politics of most flavours. That I believe is quite different to campaigning or being led my principles.

Thank you, I will watch the full film!

[Soldat_Amir]

Yes, they are Muslims not terrorist and fanatics --- this disease is not indegenous but of foreign origin brought to Pashtun Land---But soon Pashtuns are going to eliminate it from their land---

And Mr donkey (unknown prince) you can't even read, write, and speak Pashto ---tell us the truth are you some Uzbak absconder in hiding in Waziristan from Uzbak authorities...

Uzbek Militants should be all handed over to Islam Karimov. They have out stayed our welcome as Pashtuns, beheading our tribal elders and Mashar khalq. They should be dealt with force regardless of their faith or alliance.

[Shehbaz Khan]

is anp working for pashtuns of lar and bar's interests?

no !!