Afghanistan belongs to Pakistan.

[Ghundal]

^Peshawar like Kabul in the 70s? Really ?

You believe Pashtuns are secular? Care to elaborate on that

So if that was indeed true then why was there an Afghan backlash against the Militant Secularists/Communists? Because of Pakistan? So how come this policy has so failed for Pakistan in Kashmir? Or Bangladesh? And what is the Islam card? Is the secular card normal? Was it not foreign and unwanted or do you disagree?

So was Ahmad Shah Baba secular? Was Mirwais neeka secular?

I guess the Emirate that Ahmad Shah Baba founded was not real? Or the holy war he declared against India must have been staged?

If your response to this is that they used Islam to forward their goals, that would make them what is termed Islamists today, nothing that comes even remotely close to secularism.

Furthermore, Ahmad Shah Baba and Mirwais neeka can be considered most representative of Pashtun history

[az4er]

^Peshawar like Kabul in the 70s? Really ?

You believe Pashtuns are secular? Care to elaborate on that

So if that was indeed true then why was there an Afghan backlash against the Militant Secularists/Communists? Because of Pakistan? So how come this policy has so failed for Pakistan in Kashmir? Or Bangladesh? And what is the Islam card? Is the secular card normal? Was it not foreign and unwanted or do you disagree?

So was Ahmad Shah Baba secular? Was Mirwais neeka secular?

I guess the Emirate that Ahmad Shah Baba founded was not real? Or the holy war he declared against India must have been staged?

If your response to this is that they used Islam to forward their goals, that would make them what is termed Islamists today, nothing that comes even remotely close to secularism.

You again!... I said secular by nature. I told you this before Islam is a RELIGION!

Its purpose is to AID humanity and not OPPRESS them, which has been the case with the examples you mentioned. And I said "I" believe (word of the day; remember those)!!! It doesn't have to be true. Its MY view and only MINE!

I also mention that Pashtuns are PROTECTIVE by nature which makes them VULNERABLE to MANIPULATION (something I think you've had a heavy dose of). And anything that is seen as an affront to their beliefs, culture, security or family, Pashtuns fight it. Just because you act in a secular manner, especially in government, doesn't make you a non-Muslim. Being secular isn't a religious belief. Its an IDEOLOGY!!! for example, the Taliban have an extremist IDEOLOGY.

FYI I've had family there since the 40s, I think I know a thing or two about Peshawar. And I also stated not to the same degree as Kabul. These things were prevalent albeit in private or among some social circles. I didn't say they were widespread. However, not having been born then I could be wrong.

I admit I should've been more careful with my wording and not GENERALIZED, but you should stop reading into things more literally. I told you this twice before, it nullifies your argument.

[graveyardofempires]

PAshtuns are muslims so i dont know what you guys are chatting about.
those who say pashtuns are not the most hardcore muslims on the planet dont know what you are talking about.

i might have my own opinion but the above is strictly majority pashtun view.

[az4er]

PAshtuns are muslims so i dont know what you guys are chatting about.
those who say pashtuns are not the most hardcore muslims on the planet dont know what you are talking about.

i might have my own opinion but the above is strictly majority pashtun view.

I never said Pashtuns weren't "hardcore" Muslims; all I said was that I (as in me and only me) believe that Pashtuns are secular by nature, because a lot of their culture (Pashtunwali) seems to be antithetical towards Islam, and because Pashtuns tend to be overprotective (which they are), it makes them more vulnerable to manipulation and religious indoctrination through their own paranoia.

I further stated that I could be wrong and I should have been more clear when typing my sentence. The gentleman who raised issue with my point, pulled it out of context and made it seem as if it was black or white. I already told him not to generalize, it doesn't make for good argument.

[graveyardofempires]

I never said Pashtuns weren't "hardcore" Muslims; all I said was that I (as in me and only me) believe that Pashtuns are secular by nature, because a lot of their culture (Pashtunwali) seems to be antithetical towards Islam, and because Pashtuns tend to be overprotective (which they are), it makes them more vulnerable to manipulation and religious indoctrination through their own paranoia.

I further stated that I could be wrong and I should have been more clear when typing my sentence. The gentleman who raised issue with my point, pulled it out of context and made it seem as if it was black or white. I already told him not to generalize, it doesn't make for good argument.

what is seculerism according to you?
can you give an example where pashtunwali is somehow seculer?

[az4er]

what is seculerism according to you?
can you give an example where pashtunwali is somehow seculer?

Wah Khudaiya..another one... Look, I never said it was "somehow seculer". I stated that SOME of its edicts, namely Badla and Swara are antithetical to Islam. That's all.

It doesn't matter what secularism is according to me. I used the term in the sense that Pashtuns normally wouldn't want to see religion used as a tool; because that makes it susceptible to abuse by uninformed individuals looking either to cover up their own shortcomings or carry out something horrendous.

I've already expressed regret for using the term, I should have been more clear in what I wanted to express. I was merely having a pleasant exchange with Khushal Khan.

[Michin Khel]

Az4er you should'nt regret, you are right pashtuns were by "nature" seculars and were not religous extremists before zia times. The two guys you are dealing with are hardcore taliban fans and have strong dislike for seculars. Ghundal can be debated with but dont bother to even reply a teenager like graveyardofempires.
I read your posts with great interest, it seems you are living in pakistan because your knowledge indicates so.

[graveyardofempires]

Wah Khudaiya..another one... Look, I never said it was "somehow seculer". I stated that SOME of its edicts, namely Badla and Swara are antithetical to Islam. That's all.

It doesn't matter what secularism is according to me. I used the term in the sense that Pashtuns normally wouldn't want to see religion used as a tool; because that makes it susceptible to abuse by uninformed individuals looking either to cover up their own shortcomings or carry out something horrendous.

I've already expressed regret for using the term, I should have been more clear in what I wanted to express. I was merely having a pleasant exchange with Khushal Khan.

why are you getting angry?

[graveyardofempires]

LUPPY
you are just a wanna bee westerner and wish you were here living in the west.
now that you dont you trying to sound enlightend to us by being a hypocrite.

what can one expect from a mindless pathological liar such as you.

btw i differ in my views and opinions from taliban but that does not mean i push my opinion upon th people of pukhtunkhwa and Afghansitan like your types of angreez ke chokre do.

[az4er]

why are you getting angry?

Wrora Jana, I'm not getting angry. If you'd observed my previous posts, I had a long back and forth with the other guy, explaining my views.

I simply thought you were going to start pulling things out of context and start putting words in my mouth and so I wished to clarify my views. I am sorry for coming off as rude, it was by far not my intent to do so.

[graveyardofempires]

Wrora Jana, I'm not getting angry. If you'd observed my previous posts, I had a long back and forth with the other guy, explaining my views.

I simply thought you were going to start pulling things out of context and start putting words in my mouth and so I wished to clarify my views. I am sorry for coming off as rude, it was by far not my intent to do so.

no need to sorry wrora.

i didnt read all the post of you two.

[az4er]

Az4er you should'nt regret, you are right pashtuns were by "nature" seculars and were not religous extremists before zia times. The two guys you are dealing with are hardcore taliban fans and have strong dislike for seculars. Ghundal can be debated with but dont bother to even reply a teenager like graveyardofempires.
I read your posts with great interest, it seems you are living in pakistan because your knowledge indicates so.

Thank you Luffy Khan, but nonetheless it was disrespectful of me the way I responded in some of my posts. Everyone has the right to an opinion and their beliefs; the latter being subject to judgement only by the Almighty. It is not my responsibility to try to convince anyone of anything, but it is my responsibility to treat them the same way as I would want to be treated myself.

You're right, I am from Pakhtunkhwa; but I've lived my entire life between the States and Canada. I go back often; I like to keep in touch and remain informed on what goes on. But thank you for your support. I appreciate it.

I read somewhere that you were a Marwat? I have great admiration for Marwats. Brave, strong, loyal and intelligent. Plus they grow those awesome mustaches that scare the living daylights out of children.

[khushal]

The Soviets had no intention of supporting a communist coup. Maaaaybe a group within Military Intelligence, but certainly not the KGB or the Politboro authorized it.

The coup took place, because Daud Khan was alarmed at the Commies growing popularity, and he wanted to move towards an Islamic orientation (this despite killing and imprisoning many Islamists)

The Khalqis acted out of self preservation, the coup was not sanctioned by the Soviets

After the coup, the Soviets implored the Khalqis not to declare a communist state, but rather a socialist one as they recognized the ground was not fertile for communism. They implored the Khalqis to have non communists in their govt and to retract their radical policies

Taraki asked for Soviet troops before and was rejected.

where are you gettingthis information from because everything you said is completely wrong according to afghan and soviet sources.

Daud despised the islamists first for staging a coup against him in 1974 and second because he saw them as the obsticle to his #1 cause and that was Pashtunistan. He saw them as his arch enemy pakistan's proxies against him. DAud made an agreemnet with pakistan before his assasination and that was to formally recognize the durand line in exchange for 1)trade agreements that would allow afghanistan to diversify its economy and 2)neutralizing the islamists that were threatening him who had sanctuary in pakistan ie hekmatyar/rabanni/masood. He had realized what you preach today and that was Pashtunistan was a lost cause and it had made Afghanistan a satallite state of the soviet union.

Second, When Tariki/Amin took over after the coup, it was amin who was against the radical reforms the Soviets were pressuring tariki to execute. The Soviets saw Amin as an obsticle so the soviets ordered Tariki to assisinate Amin. Amin heard of the plot and he struck Tariki before Tariki could act by putting a pillow over his head and sufficating him(what a way to die). When Breznez heard that Taraki had been killed, it is said that he shed tears since he regarded Tariki as his obedient son. The Soviets invaded, killed Amin and you know the rest.

Many of my Kaliwol perished with Daud who were top military men in the afghan army and I can tell you Daud was no Islamist nor was he leaning towards them at any point.
I dont know if your Canadian think tanks know what they are doing since they have gotten it wrong for the past ten years.

[khushal]

I have to disagree with you on that one. On the 21st of July 1947, a resolution was adopted by Dr. Jabbar Khans "Frontier National Congress" (FNC) (which controlled the provincial assembly), Ghaffar Khans KK and the "Zalmay Pukhthana". They unanimously declared that a separate independent Pashtun state be established. The next day at a rally, Ghaffar Khan declared that all these groups were going to boycott the referendum. The only options on the ballot were india and pakistan. Ghaffar and the others wanted Afghanistan or independence to also be included as an option. It didn't happen, hence, the boycott.

Only about 580,000 out of a possible 4 million were allowed to vote. And even worse, only 290,000 votes were even polled. Part of the reason was obviously the boycott. The other was due to the obvious rigging, in addition to Caroe's fear mongering (the british supported the creation of a pakistani state), which forced all the Khans to defect towards the "Muslim League", convinced by Abdur Rab Nishtar (who himself was stabbed in the back by two other british agents Qayyum and Liauqat Ali Khan). Plus the attitude of the Khan brothers didn't help either, nonetheless, popular vote was on their side, which the other landowning Khans had a problem with. After the vote, when Qayyum Khan and his "League" came into power in the province, he privately admitted in many circles and to the imprisoned Jabbar Khan that the votes that weren't counted were cast for india! (Note: During the run-up to the referendum, he's believed to have killed no less than 200 people, to prevent them from voting)

Although it was physically and ideologically impossible to become a part of india, a vote for india would've meant a vote for independence.

You're right pakistan doesn't have the power to prevent Pashtuns from seceding, but it certainly has the capability to divert people's attentions from it. As I mentioned the NAP, which was on the opposition benches of the federal legislature, and controlled the NWFP and Balochistan ones, came inches within of bifurcating the state. It was only when the Soviets invaded, that presented itself as an opportunity.

Why do you think they were so chummy with the Taliban? india has historically had good relations with Afghanistan. pakistan went through one of its most successful periods of economic growth under the elder bhutto with a
"free" and "independent" Afghanistan next door.

Peshawar was no different back then; miniskirts, discos and other stuff associated with the 70s was quite prevalent back then (not as much as Kabul but still). So were foreigners and tourist. They disappeared after when zia came into power. And by 2001, all of them were gone.

I believe all Pashtuns are secular by nature but their protective nature leaves them vulnerable to manipulation, the kind you see regurgitated by pakistan. The 70s were by far the hey-day for Pashtun independence under the pakistani state; Pashtuns in FATA, PATA, NWFP and Balochistan were reaping the benefits of a modern education; had the Soviets never invaded, I sincerely believe that we'd be looking at a very different map of South-Central Asia.

As for today, most Pashtuns are brainwashed into loving their "country", because their history is kept from them, and even then vast majority simply don't care. The dominant attitude among Pashtuns is "whatever". Their first priority is to provide for their family's needs and security. Having said that, people are becoming more socially aware; they are going through an identity crisis within pakistan; and I don't see how long the pakistani state can keep this fallacy going, especially if Afghanistan gets back on its feet. They will have to confront it sooner or later.

After taking huge blows in the WoT, pakistan has learned its lesson and has stopped using the Islam card as much as it used to. They've finally decided to promote development and build infrastructure in FATA and PATA. It may have come too late, but its a positive sign which can only lead to greater security, opportunity and social awareness.

Abdul Wali Challenges President Bhutto - YouTube

Thanks for your input Az4er. It is very intersting on what you say and the information you have provided. I am not as familiar with historical facts east of the durand as I am west of it. One wonders what could have happened if the soviets had never invaded.