We are historically imperialist!

[eusuphxai]

Pakhtun history is full of snatching land from its native people, why do we moan when its happening to us. Also where are those pakhtuns gone? I want them back

[PakistaniWazir]

one side afghanis sell pakhtunkhwa to british and then they demand it bk!

bye bye bye afghanis

we the pakistani pashtuns will never bow down to ur plans of division

[Roshina]

Thats not really true Eusuphxai, do you mind elaborating please?

For example, who were the originals of Swat? Where are they now? What did the Yusufzais do to them after taking over the region?

[Dreamer]

one side afghanis sell pakhtunkhwa to british and then they demand it bk!

bye bye bye afghanis

we the pakistani pashtuns will never bow down to ur plans of division

no u just bow to punjabies!

[eusuphxai]

one side afghanis sell pakhtunkhwa to british and then they demand it bk!

bye bye bye afghanis

we the pakistani pashtuns will never bow down to ur plans of division

speak for yourself! why is everyone here to impose there agenda and you are one of them!

[eusuphxai]

Thanks qratugai!

[khyaal]

Pakhtun history is full of snatching land from its native people, why do we moan when its happening to us. Also where are those pakhtuns gone? I want them back

Could you enlighten us who were the original inhabitants of Swat? Do you know who fought against Alexander when his army invaded Swat, Buner, Bajaur and Kunar?

[Roshina]

Do you mind telling us who were the originals of swat?

So your telling me that the Yusufzais of Kandahar and Kabul just committed an ethnic cleansing and took over Swat? Yusufzai is originally from those provinces of Afghanistan.

I was asking you, kana, che who were the originals of Swat? Who was settled in Swat before the Yusufzais took over? As you said yourself, the Yusufzais are originally from Afghanistan, NOT originally from Swat. So ... what I wanna know is, what happened to the original people of Swat then? How peaceful was the settlement of the Yusufizais in Swat? How willingly did the originals give up their land, if they did at all? And so on.

[khyaal]

Do you mind telling us who were the originals of swat?

So your telling me that the Yusufzais of Kandahar and Kabul just committed an ethnic cleansing and took over Swat? Yusufzai is originally from those provinces of Afghanistan.

Aseer jaana! The word yousafzai is a distorted word for Aspzai or Aspzoi which means childern of horse (Asp or Ass in Pashto/persian means horse) These people were impressive horse riders, that' why they were called Aspzai. They lived in Swat, Buner and Kunar even during the time of Alexander and they fought his armies. The migration of some of them to Kandahar was the result of their defeat by Alexander's army. They later on settled in Kabul and then during Olaghbeg's rule they fled to Swat after the mass killing of most of their elders by Olaghbeg. In Swat and buner the old commune of Aspzai were already there. Then finally they fought against the old Aspzoi and occupied their land. ( I'll try to find and quote you the source of this event).

[khyaal]

I disagree with the topic title that Pashtuns took over other peoples land.

Do you disagree with it as well? If you agree that Pashtuns slaughtered the original inhabitants to take over the land. We can discuss and research.

we can both benefit from this discussion. We are known for hospitality not for robbing lands.

The inhabitants of Swat of that time now live in Hazara division where they are called Swatis. The original inhabitants from Charsada who were Dalazaak, also a Pashtun tribe, were pushed beyond Nowshehra or Nawkhaar. In those days tribal rivalries and disputes were common.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I was asking you, kana, che who were the originals of Swat? Who was settled in Swat before the Yusufzais took over? As you said yourself, the Yusufzais are originally from Afghanistan, NOT originally from Swat. So ... what I wanna know is, what happened to the original people of Swat then? How peaceful was the settlement of the Yusufizais in Swat? How willingly did the originals give up their land, if they did at all? And so on.

Qrrathugaii you are confusing things here. First of all, using the Yousafzai takeover as imperialism is fundamentally wrong (tribal conflict can not be denoted as imperialism, because then you might as well consider every x,y,z tribe as an imperialist entity). Second of all Swat was part of Afghanistan and has always been (till the division in 1893, and the forceful accession in 69). Afghanistan was generically used by the likes of Babur to denote the Pashtun areas and Swat fell under the Dilazaks (who themselves moved there previously). Yousafzais basically took it over after tribal conflict (which is common in Pashtun history)...one tribes overtakes another, one moves, and so on. The dilazaks are know colloquially known as part of the swati tribe. They mostly live in the Hazara division.

[Dawezai]

Pakhtun history is full of snatching land from its native people, why do we moan when its happening to us. Also where are those pakhtuns gone? I want them back

eusuphxai, it seems your ideas have not changed over the last 5 years or so. *joking*

- One bad, if it really is one, does not justify another bad.

- Historical and political realities change over time, in case we were imperialists does not mean we are still imperialist and that does not mean we should tolerate imperialism.

- Pashtuns/Afghans have mostly been the victims of imperialism both historically and today (but you would not like to refer to that).

- In those old ["bad"] days states were not formed on the basis of nationalism. The main concerns of states were demarcation of borders and big size to make sure that other states did not pose security threats. So the Afghans were not alone in making the state of Afghanistan as big as they could.

[erlangner]

I dont agree with this topic. Historically it is said Pashtuns were imperialists, but one should see the regional scenario, as there was only power game in the region and whole world. Then in such a situation how one could expect from pashtuns to be democratic and liberals and not invading or attacking others and they were suffering theirselves as well.

But one should see also when pashtuns occupied the areas, then how thea tretaed masses. They were the best kings and rulers. Just make a comparison of these both. Who was best for example between Humayun and sher shah suri?
Who was better between Ahmad Shah Abdali and Akbar the great and so on.
It means Pashtuns are psychologically kind people.

Then take the examples of Mughals, Britians, Ranjit singh, Gorgin etc what did they do with Pashtuns?

Today Pashtuns are threat to no one, but what is happeining to them?

Then I myself (perhpas I am biased) feel very honestly that Pashtuns are victims in history and today as well.

[khyaal]

I was asking you, kana, che who were the originals of Swat? Who was settled in Swat before the Yusufzais took over? As you said yourself, the Yusufzais are originally from Afghanistan, NOT originally from Swat.

Do you understand what you are saying? You have actually stuck in the post Durand treaty paradigm, that is why you consider Swat to be an eternal part of an eternally existing Pakistani state. But the fact is Swat and the whole of Pakhtunkhwa upto Margalla hills has always belonged to Pakhtuns till the imposed Durand treaty divided this land into two parts and Pakhtuns of the Eastern part lost their sovereignty to the British colonialists.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

U-sup-zay, we Pashtuns have always been tough soldiers and indomitable adversaries but we have never been effective conquerors and therefore, we cannot be called imperialists. Secondly, the few Pashtun rulers of the throne of India have been, generally speaking, benevolent. Let me explain both my arguments.

The first Pashtuns on the (almost for rent) throne of Delhi were the Lodis. They lasted from 1451 to 1526 (75 years). The Turks and Persians, in comparison, had been there since 1206 (345 years), ever since Mohammad Ghori decided to stay to have medium range ballistic missiles named after him.

Sher Shah Suri was the only one of the Suris who had effective control of his empire. He ruled for a mere spell of 5 years. When Humayun returned with his band of Shi'ites in 1556 to remove Sher Shah's useless successors, actual Pashtun rule in India, which lasted for a total of 75+16 years, came to an end - indefinitely.

The only other Pashtun to wield enough power to recapture Delhi was Ahmed Shah Durrani but it's arguable whether or not he could have maintained control of both Delhi and Kandahar.

The greatest of the Pashtun kings of Delhi, Sher Shah Suri, was anything but an imperialist. He was known as the most fair king of India and some Western historians place him over Akbar (remember, Akbar is the best Mughal in the Wests' eyes whereas according to Pakistan Studies, Aurengzeb was da man). The Pashtun kings of Delhi, like their Tughluq, Khilji and Sayid predecessors, made Delhi their capital and India their home. They were not imperialists. Pashtun kings did not impose their language and culture over anyone, they did not loot the wealth of India and invest it in their Pashtun homelands (the Ghaznavis did that and they were Oguz Turks) and they did not enslave those that they ruled.