Why do we include Balochistan in a hypothetical Pashtunistan?

[khushal]

What you have a hard time believing is irrelevant. Your personal feelings about something or choice to accept or deny something mean nothing here.


Nuristanis didn't assimilate because they're very recent and until the last 100 or so years were mainly isolated. DUH. Look up any of the historical background on the conquest of Nuristan. That's a PRETTY OBVIOUS answer to someone who is familiar with Afghanistan, but I guess to people like yourself I can understand how you'd have made that mistake.

Ghilzais assimilation is something verified with evidence, the fact that ghilzai and Khaladj Turks, their whereabouts and migrations correspond verifies this. There is linguistic evidence, the names of Ghilzai clans Hotak and Kharot.

Hotak is a widely used tribal name amongst the Turks

Uşak'lı İsmail Hotak bir kız sevdim - YouTube

Here's a turk with the last name Hotak. There's no Pashto word Hotak neither in Farsi, this leaves Hotak being of Turkic origins.

Your claim that I was doing the manopulation was debunked by further evidence I presented and your response to that evidence was debunked by the fact you made circular argument in reference to your own claim. There's no merit to revert back to this.

Nuristanis are not recent. They are mentioned in the rig veda and Alexander wrote about them:

Nuristanis are first mentioned in the Rigveda, the collection of ancient Vedic Sanskrit hymns sacred to Hindus. In the Rigveda, they appear as Alinas, and fought on the side of the sage Vishvamitra in the Battle of the Ten Kings.
Specifically, the Rigveda describes the victory of the Bharatas over Vishvamitra's Puru regiment and its Nuristani, Pashtun, Balochi, Kashmiri, and Bhrigus allies.
Rigveda 7.18.7 says

Together came the Pakthas, the Bhalanas, the Alinas, the Sivas, the Visanins. Yet to the Trtsus came the Ārya's Comrade, through love of spoil and heroes' war, to lead them[11]

• Alinas: One of the tribes defeated by Sudas at the Dasarajna,[12] and it was suggested that they lived to the north-east of Nuristan, because the land was mentioned by the Chinese pilgrim Hiouen Thsang.[13]

Like certain other groups in the region, they sometimes exhibit physical characteristics of light hair, eyes, and skin. There is a large number of these people who live in Chitral, Pakistan the eastern border of Nuristan. Most of these people are from the Kata Family and Janaderi Branch. However there are other Nuristani tribes as well, some of the Kata of Janaderi people live in Ozhor (now Karimabad[disambiguation needed]), Gobor, Buburat, Ayun, Broze and Mastuj. There is a very popular rock associated with this tribe located in Karimabad (Juwara) called kata bont (Kata is the name of the tribe; bont meaning "stone" in the Chitrali language).
In 4th century BC, Alexander the Great encountered them and reduced them after a stubborn and prolonged fight, describing them as being distinct culturally and religiously from other peoples of the region.[1]

Your claims about ghilzais being turk is also not sufficient. you have not shown linguistic evidence similar to hazaras because you claimed 800 years which is about the same time frame of when Hazaras(mongolians) came to the region. Also the guy in the pic looks more like a mongol or Hazara than a Ghilzai.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Nuristanis are not recent. They are mentioned in the rig veda and Alexander wrote about them:



Your claims about ghilzais being turk is also not sufficient. you have not shown linguistic evidence similar to hazaras because you claimed 800 years which is about the same time frame of when Hazaras(mongolians) came to the region. Also the guy in the pic looks more like a mongol or Hazara than a Ghilzai.

Um I presented linguistic evidence, Turkic names is not linguistic evidence? oook there buddy. Furthermore that's not my only evidence. you can't ignore migratory patterns of the Khaladj and the situation where Ghilzais first emerged. WHICH YOU TOTALLY overlooked. Now the name alone doesn't prove anything but here we have NAME + Geography + Migratory Patterns + the fact Ghilzais are Kuchis like Turks are. Obviously Ghilzais wouldn't be speaking Turkc because they ASSIMILATED Pashto; so if that's the linguistic evidence you speak of. Then that would make no sense. Much like There's no linguistic evidence that African Americans are primarily from Mandingo Tribes of West Africa, BUT we know by the way they were transported and from where they're Mandigo by descent.

DENIAL

and you totally committed a strawman; Nuristan became Nuristan About 100 years ago, before this they were remote people who barely made contact outside. It was only AFTER they made contact and forced to convert to Islam did this change. So in context to them not assimilating to Pashtuns who are also recent, their assimilation wouldn't have occured. Just because Alexander mentions them doesn't mean they didn't become remote. Go look at the History of Nuristan

So mentioning something from the RG Veda's is wholly a red herring

check mate again.

[khushal]

Um I presented linguistic evidence, Turkic names is not linguistic evidence? oook there buddy. Furthermore that's not my only evidence. you can't ignore migratory patterns of the Khaladj and the situation where Ghilzais first emerged. WHICH YOU TOTALLY overlooked. Now the name alone doesn't prove anything but here we have NAME + Geography + Migratory Patterns + the fact Ghilzais are Kuchis like Turks are. Obviously Ghilzais wouldn't be speaking Turkc because they ASSIMILATED Pashto; so if that's the linguistic evidence you speak of. Then that would make no sense. Much like There's no linguistic evidence that African Americans are primarily from Mandingo Tribes of West Africa, BUT we know by the way they were transported and from where they're Mandigo by descent.

DENIAL

Its Mandinka not Mandingo. That's a bad comparison because they were enslaved and forced to leave and forget their culture and language. The Ghilzi even if they are Turk were never enslaved so no one forced them to forget their own culture and language. My point is that they would have some of their original language intact like the Hazaras have and the other turkic people in central Asia. So you have proved nothing, its just a theory that you choose to believe.

and you totally committed a strawman; Nuristan became Nuristan About 100 years ago, before this they were remote people who barely made contact outside. It was only AFTER they made contact and forced to convert to Islam did this change. So in context to them not assimilating to Pashtuns who are also recent, their assimilation wouldn't have occured. Just because Alexander mentions them doesn't mean they didn't become remote. Go look at the History of Nuristan

So mentioning something from the RG Veda's is wholly a red herring

check mate again.

Your changing Goal posts here. You know fully well I am talking about the people known as Nuristanis today. Those people did not just pop out of no where, they were always there. Rigveda and Alexanders historians confirm it.
Also how could pashtuns be recent when you claim that the turks assimilated into pashtuns, would it not make sense for the pashtuns to assimilate into turks since they were a bigger group. The whole theory has too many holes in it that is why I have a hard time believing in it.

[khushal]

Just because a person name is Hotak does not really mean anything. I met a guy from Nigeria whose last name was Zazi and he told me there is a town by that name there. Does not really mean anything.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Well I never said "JUST" because; I'm showing the turkic connections based on the other evidence.

you asked for linguistic evidence right? Well Turkic names are LNGUISTIC evidence. Hotak has NO meaning in Pashto.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Its Mandinka not Mandingo. That's a bad comparison because they were enslaved and forced to leave and forget their culture and language. The Ghilzi even if they are Turk were never enslaved so no one forced them to forget their own culture and language. My point is that they would have some of their original language intact like the Hazaras have and the other turkic people in central Asia. So you have proved nothing, its just a theory that you choose to believe.



Your changing Goal posts here. You know fully well I am talking about the people known as Nuristanis today. Those people did not just pop out of no where, they were always there. Rigveda and Alexanders historians confirm it.
Also how could pashtuns be recent when you claim that the turks assimilated into pashtuns, would it not make sense for the pashtuns to assimilate into turks since they were a bigger group. The whole theory has too many holes in it that is why I have a hard time believing in it.

The issue isn't whether they were enslaved or not; it's that we know their origins even if they do not speak Mandinka today. Same with Ghilzai we know their origins, by their patterns of travel, location, and little clues like names which are not of Pashtun origin like Hotak. It's all there.

I'm not changing goalposts; YOU changed goalposts and you're changing them now too.; YOU knew I was referring to the fact that pashtuns had limited exposure to Nuristanis until much recently and would explain as to why they did not assimilate with Pashtuns. Yet you brought up Alexannder and the Rg Vedas as if they had any relevance to that context. Which clearly it does not. Look at the Historical documentation of the conquest or Kafiristan. They were remote from everyone else hence why they didn't convert to Islam. They weren't even consider themselves rules under Afghanistan.

[khushal]

Well I never said "JUST" because; I'm showing the turkic connections based on the other evidence.

you asked for linguistic evidence right? Well Turkic names are LNGUISTIC evidence. Hotak has NO meaning in Pashto.

Just because some mongol looking person has a last name Hotak does not prove anything. Let look at primary sources at the time frame(800 years ago) of your claim.

According to Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani, a 13th century historian, "there were over 15 great Khalji personalities who ruled from 1203 A.D. onwards over India and were spreading Khorasanian and Islamic culture all over northern India and the highlands of North Bengal."[1] The Lodi dynasty ruled over the Delhi Sultanate during its last phase. The dynasty, founded by Bahlul Khan Lodi ruled from 1451 to 1526 when the last Lodi ruler, Ibrahim Lodi died. Other Ghilzai dynasties included the Suri dynasty who was founded by the powerful medieval conqueror, Sher Shah Suri (Shere Khan), who defeated the Mughal Emperor Humayun in Chausa in June 1539 and again in Bilgram in May 1540.

The Lodi's were Pashtun not turks as you claim.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You're repeating yourself I never said "just" because of the name, It's THE Name + the migration + the Historical Data + where they're currently situated. This Hotak guy confirms it since he's a Turk. The name Hotak is Turkic.

Look at the timeline, Lodis were several centuries afterwards The Lodis correspond to the last phase of the Khalji, i.e. Khalaj Turks ....it says it right in the quote you show. All Ghilzais were Turks at one time, and ADOPTED Pashto, then became Afghans. If you can admit other Pashtuns went through it, why is the it hard to grasp for Ghilzai?

You have confirmation bias thus you'll never admit anything that isn't subordinate to your narrative as usual.

[Wahe Guru]

You're repeating yourself I never said "just" because of the name, It's THE Name + the migration + the Historical Data + where they're currently situated. This Hotak guy confirms it since he's a Turk. The name Hotak is Turkic.

Look at the timeline, Lodis were several centuries afterwards The Lodis correspond to the last phase of the Khalji, i.e. Khalaj Turks ....it says it right in the quote you show. All Ghilzais were Turks at one time, and ADOPTED Pashto, then became Afghans. If you can admit other Pashtuns went through it, why is the it hard to grasp for Ghilzai?

You have confirmation bias thus you'll never admit anything that isn't subordinate to your narrative as usual.

RTR, "All Ghilzais were Turks at one time" - I think probably they were Iranic people who had been Turkified in Central Asia and adopted a Turkic language. I am assuming they must have moved south to Afghanistan (and maybe India as well) due to more and more Mongoloid Turks taking over in Central Asia. If they were always living in Afghanistan but speaking Turkic prior to Pashto, that too could have been an adoption of Turkic due to some reason e.g. joining in with Turkic rulers/conquerers. Later again they could have switched to Pashto.

It seems to me that the original Turks must have been a more Mongolian looking people and Ghilzai do not look Mongoloid. I saw in Istanbul museum, they had drawings of the original Turkish rulers and they looked like drawings we see of Babur and Kublai Khan (China) grandson of Chengiz Khan. When the Turks conquered Turkey, the natives were already there speaking other languages like Greek, Armenian, Kurdish etc. As the land became Turkified, the natives adopted Turkish and all started calling themselves Turks. Maybe about 10% of the Turkish people are descended from conquering Mongol looking Turks and rest are descended from original natives?

Who are damans or dums? Are they Doms ("gypsy") ?

[khushal]

Look at the timeline, Lodis were several centuries afterwards The Lodis correspond to the last phase of the Khalji, i.e. Khalaj Turks ....it says it right in the quote you show. All Ghilzais were Turks at one time, and ADOPTED Pashto, then became Afghans. If you can admit other Pashtuns went through it, why is the it hard to grasp for Ghilzai?

Its a theory that has holes in it. The phase does not describe the turks transition to pashtuns, it describes how it ruled south asia in phases ie different dynastys. Oriental Scholars dismiss this theory.

The Ghilzais are a confederation of Pashtun tribes whose origin is unknown. Some oriental scholars hold that the Ghilzais are the descendants of a mixed race of Hephthalite and Pakhtas who have been living in Afghanistan since the Vedic Aryan period.

How did the Ghilzi personalities become pashtunized in south asia when they were ruling over south asia. They should have been south asianized

[khushal]

RTR, "All Ghilzais were Turks at one time" - I think probably they were Iranic people who had been Turkified in Central Asia and adopted a Turkic language. I am assuming they must have moved south to Afghanistan (and maybe India as well) due to more and more Mongoloid Turks taking over in Central Asia. If they were always living in Afghanistan but speaking Turkic prior to Pashto, that too could have been an adoption of Turkic due to some reason e.g. joining in with Turkic rulers/conquerers. Later again they could have switched to Pashto.

It seems to me that the original Turks must have been a more Mongolian looking people and Ghilzai do not look Mongoloid. I saw in Istanbul museum, they had drawings of the original Turkish rulers and they looked like drawings we see of Babur and Kublai Khan (China) grandson of Chengiz Khan. When the Turks conquered Turkey, the natives were already there speaking other languages like Greek, Armenian, Kurdish etc. As the land became Turkified, the natives adopted Turkish and all started calling themselves Turks. Maybe about 10% of the Turkish people are descended from conquering Mongol looking Turks and rest are descended from original natives?

See this theory makes more sense. Its more probable than what RTR is saying.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

RTR, "All Ghilzais were Turks at one time" - I think probably they were Iranic people who had been Turkified in Central Asia and adopted a Turkic language. I am assuming they must have moved south to Afghanistan (and maybe India as well) due to more and more Mongoloid Turks taking over in Central Asia. If they were always living in Afghanistan but speaking Turkic prior to Pashto, that too could have been an adoption of Turkic due to some reason e.g. joining in with Turkic rulers/conquerers. Later again they could have switched to Pashto.

It seems to me that the original Turks must have been a more Mongolian looking people and Ghilzai do not look Mongoloid. I saw in Istanbul museum, they had drawings of the original Turkish rulers and they looked like drawings we see of Babur and Kublai Khan (China) grandson of Chengiz Khan. When the Turks conquered Turkey, the natives were already there speaking other languages like Greek, Armenian, Kurdish etc. As the land became Turkified, the natives adopted Turkish and all started calling themselves Turks. Maybe about 10% of the Turkish people are descended from conquering Mongol looking Turks and rest are descended from original natives?

Who are damans or dums? Are they Doms ("gypsy") ?

What you're saying is not inconsistent with what I was saying. All Ghilzais were Turks AT ONE TIME, means exactly that. I never said they were Mongoloids.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

See this theory makes more sense. Its more probable than what RTR is saying.

And it's perfectly consistent with what I was saying. I never claimed Ghilzais were Mongolids. I said they were Turks AT ONE TIME. Not at "All Times" at ONE TIME.


why are people like you and Wahe Guru so challenged in basic logic?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Its a theory that has holes in it. The phase does not describe the turks transition to pashtuns, it describes how it ruled south asia in phases ie different dynastys. Oriental Scholars dismiss this theory.

How did the Ghilzi personalities become pashtunized in south asia when they were ruling over south asia. They should have been south asianized

Well my HYPOTHESIS is that the Ghilzais under the influence of the Ghorids and Saljuks became infused with Afghan armies who were conquered by both. And in the process marrying Pashtun women, the Pashtun women went on to teach Pashto to their children.

This seems consistent with the "Ghilzai" progenitor story of Shah Hussain Ghori, although he wasn't a Turk, but it may have mixed with stories of Khalaj marrying Pashtun women and spawning the modern Ghilzais.

This perfectly coincides with the "Phase". Since it was the Khalaj Soldiers of Ghorids and Saljuks who conquered India and then led into the Lodi Dynasty.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

By the way The original contention was regarding WHETHER Ghllzais were originally Pashtun

Since Khushal accepts Wahe Guru's theory which basically admits that Ghilzais were NOT Pashto speakers originally. Then Khushal has conceded

my work here is done.