We are historically imperialist!

[KhalsaWarrior]

At the topic, I dont think Karma is a factor in the history of a country or people. Hindu or Buddhist philosophy is unclear there!

If it was the case that those who invaded, got paid for it later on, then the Americans should have faced the worst. They finished off the Native Americans, destroyed their culture and imposed their religion. But where are the Americans and America now? At the top pedestal, for the 60 years, 20 of those without any rival.

[eyeliner]

Before when there was no afghanistan and it was aryana did the land belong to afghans?

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Before when there was no afghanistan and it was aryana did the land belong to afghans?

Afghanistan has been used since the time of Babur, and that was before the formal creation of the state by Ahmad Shah Baba or the modern one by Emir Abdur Rahman.

[Roshina]

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 are known for hospitality not for robbing lands.

I don't agree with the "imperialist" part of the title, no. For example, what did the British imperialists do to the lands they conquered? They deprived them of their identities and enslaved them -- in the case of Africans, they even brought them over to foreign lands to destroy their very essence of being! And that's what imperialism has now come to mean. So when we say that Pashtuns were imperialists in the past, we're implying that we've enslaved people, killed them, and committed all other atrocities just because we saw ourselves as superior to others. That's not true at all.

So, no, no one would agree that Pukhtuns slaughtered people for whatever reasons.

The books I've read on the history of Swat (will have to name them later; don't remember right now) and the people I've talked to about it have assured me that the original people of Swat were not Pukhtuns and Pukhto was not their native language. In fact, I was talking about this with someone earlier who said they were originally Hindkowaan. We kicked most of them out of Swat, but there are still villages in Swat where they are there and they still call themselves Swatis (the "original" Swatis, they add). These villages include Khwazakhela.

If they were Pukhtuns, why did they need to be "pushed" out of Swat to settle in other parts? And how much a say did they have in moving away from Swat?

However, I will have to look into this further before I agree or disagree about their ethnicity and original culture.

Khyaal described it as "pushed beyond Nowshehra," and how were they "pushed" beyond?

So now,

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.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant, except for the part about their being Pukhtuns. I'll have to look into that myself.

The important thing is that we should not deny it BUT we have no right to condemn our people for it, either, since, as Khyaal said, such disputes and rivalries were perfectly common in those days. Fighting people, winning lands, losing property -- they were all the calls of the day. It's unfair of us to impose today's standards on our ancestors when everything was different back then, even until a few decades ago.

So now the question is: Were the original people of Swat actually Pukhtuns or not? If not, what happened to them? IF yes, why did they have to emigrate?

Indeed, Yusufzais are NOT originally from Swat. I completely understand BLS's and Khyaal's point -- that Swat was back then a part of Afghanistan, and so it doesn't make any sense to say that they were "from Afghanistan" when Swat MEANS Afghanistan in such a historical discussion -- but my point is that they were not from the Swat that we know today. Hence, how did the Yusufzais become the largest tribe of Pukhtuns there? Who were the "original" Swatis, and how exactly were they pushed back?

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I don't agree with the "imperialist" part of the title, no. For example, what did the British imperialists do to the lands they conquered? They deprived them of their identities and enslaved them -- in the case of Africans, they even brought them over to foreign lands to destroy their very essence of being! And that's what imperialism has now come to mean. So when we say that Pashtuns were imperialists in the past, we're implying that we've enslaved people, killed them, and committed all other atrocities just because we saw ourselves as superior to others. That's not true at all.

So, no, no one would agree that Pukhtuns slaughtered people for whatever reasons.

The books I've read on the history of Swat and the people I've talked to about it have assured me that the original people of Swat were not Pukhtuns and Pukhto was not their original language. We kicked them out of Swat, and there are still villages in Swat where they are there and they still call themselves Swatis (the original Swatis, they add). These villages include Khwazakhela.

However, I will have to look into this further before I agree or disagree about their ethnicity and original culture.

Khyaal described it as "pushed beyond Nowshehra," and how were they "pushed" beyond?

So now,



Yes, this is exactly what I meant, except for the part about their being Pukhtuns. I'll have to look into that myself.

The important thing is that we should not deny it BUT we have no right to condemn our people for it, either, since, as Khyaal said, such disputes and rivalries were perfectly common in those days. Fighting people, winning lands, losing property -- they were all the calls of the day. It's unfair of us to impose today's standards on our ancestors when everything was different back then, even until a few decades ago.

So now the question is: Were the original people of Swat actually Pukhtuns or not? If not, what happened to them?

Indeed, Yusufzais are NOT originally from Swat. I completely understand BLS's and Khyaal's point -- that Swat was back then a part of Afghanistan -- but my point is that they were not from the Swat that we know today. How did the Yusufzais become the largest tribe of Pukhtuns? Who were the "original" Swatis, and how exactly were they pushed back?

Yusafzais are not the largest tribe, the Ghiljais are followed by Durranis (these two ebing tribal confederations). Yousafzais most probably come in as third. Swatis were dilazaks and Dilzaks were a Pashtun tribe.

[erlangner]

I will support Qrattugai to the extent, that Pashtuns were not imerialist the way others were. I think it is a common pashtun nature to be kind to the weeker, and aggressive the stronger. Zakkah kho hamesha wahal khori.

Hagha tsanga waee khoshal baba, if someone can make the corrections the verse,

Har ghaleem ta lakka baz mangol paida ka,
Ao ---- ta ta haleem sha tar hamama

[erlangner]

And by the way Qrratugai, when you research Ghilzais and Durranis you will begin to realize the Yusufzais are no where near being the "largest" tribe.

The largest Pashtun tribe is the Ghilzais, Durranis. Even tribes like Achakzai, Noorzai are than Yusufzai. If you visit the border area you will realize the tribe Yusufzai does not even exist. From Quetta all the way to Kandahar all you will find it Achakzai and Noorzai.

Kakar tribe is about 2x larger than Yusufzai. (Including those from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan)

Jasmine Qrattugai kho domra ma khafa kawah.

But you should also think, that Swabi, Mardan, Charsadda, some area of Nowshehra, Swat, Shangla to some extent, buner, and dir are mostly yousafzai. You will never see a single Ghilzai, Achakzai or someone else. Therefore without true figures it is hard to say which tribe is the biggest.
But in Pashtuns living on the eats of durandline yousafzai will be the largest.

[Roshina]

Qrratugai khor, In the beginning of the 11th century AD, There was a man by the name of Mahmud of Ghazni who advanced through Dir and invaded Swat, defeating Gira, the local ruler, near Udegram. As time passed [...] The majority of the aboriginal inhabitants of Swat migrated to the Hazara region to the east, where Swatis predominate with their surname Swati, reflecting their link to the region. Swati is surname is to show that they were the original inhabitants of Swat, not the Yusufzais who mainly came from Kabul and Kandahar.

Yes ...
... Hence my questions in the previous post.

And if the originals of Swat were actually Pukhtuns, why did they have to be forced to move to the Hazara region?

This is now what I need to know before anything else.

Khyaal, I've been told you are into history, and so I'm going to be trusting your accounts more. Looking forward to them!

[Roshina]

And by the way Qrratugai, when you research Ghilzais and Durranis you will begin to realize the Yusufzais are no where near being the "largest" tribe.

The largest Pashtun tribe is the Ghilzais, Durranis. Even tribes like Achakzai, Noorzai are than Yusufzai. If you visit the border area you will realize the tribe Yusufzai does not even exist. From Quetta all the way to Kandahar all you will find it Achakzai and Noorzai.

Kakar tribe is about 2x larger than Yusufzai. (Including those from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan)

Correct. The Yusufzais are not the largest tribe among all of Pukhtuns; they are, however, the largest tribe in Swat. And that's what I said as well.

[Roshina]

Did you read my complete post Jaan? I already answered your question khorey.

I certainly read the whole post -- but highlighted the points that support the claim that the original people of Swat were not Pukhtuns, or at least were forced to leave their native land (Swat) for somewhere else: Hazara.

However, Khyaal has said that they were Pukhtuns. And this is what I need to know for sure.

[Roshina]

Qrratugai, you yourself said it here.



and I along with BLS corrected you.


Edit:
I noticed you edited your post. All fine.

Since the discussion is entirely on Swat, why would you assume that I was talking about all of Pukhtuns, Jasmine? (I edited it because I knew you would assume I think the Yusufzais are the largest tribe among all of Pukhtuns. Someone who would read it in context, however, would know what I meant.)

[pir_Rokhan]

If the aim of imperialism is to exploit the resources,money and wealth of a nation and then use it for the benefit of the imperialist nation then not only that Pukthuns have not been imperialist but they have been spiritualists in practice. Let me elaborate.

We see that even a visioanry like Ahmed Shah baba after conquering North India due to the request of Shah Waliuallah and not to enlarge his empire left the throne of Delhi and came back to the Center of Paukhtkhwa- Kandahar saying :

"I forgot the throne of Delhi when I am reminded of the high peaks of my enchanting Pukthunkhwa".

Which "Imperialist" would leave the conquered land like this and come back home due to the love of his land?

This however on the contrary gives us a much more important clue about the nature of Afghans. It teaches us that it has been a hard luck for Afghans that due to their geo-strategic situation they have been always fighting against the imperialists and conquerers to defend their land against any aggression.

On the contrary , Afghans even if after defending their land or a just cause against agressors if took the charge of others' land gave exemplary governance to the ruled junta by makking them the governors of their own land like the decision of Ahmed Shah Baba to make Ranjeet Singh as the governor of Punjab and leaving Mashhad to the Iranians etc.

Similarly while Mughals were more inspired by their personal taste due to which they gave some monumental and historic buildings etc to the Indians, it was Afghans who gave Grand Trunk Road and exemplary Justice to the Indians.

Last but not least if Pashtuns were imperialists in nature they and their resources would not be exploited by the Punjabis in Pakistan for the last 63 years and they would not be fighting a democratic war to win just a name for their occupied land in Pakistan.

[eusuphxai]

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).

Very very interesting indeed and i would love to see any proof. But i believe and what i have studied , yousafai are sons of yousaf. But still I might be wrong and khiyal some authentic links will be appreciated.

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.

The whole topic is concentrating on swat, I must really suck at history but few books i studied, swat was centre for Bhuddas, one of the real non violent people, yousafzai tribe did came and took the land because they loved the weather and the place (who woudn't LOL)

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.

Thank you very much Dewazai (And is it really 5 years :O) LOL mara gham ma kawa tol umar ba gaday waday waima. on serious not a lot has changed.

My point was, We have been bad guys in history at some point, so we should admit. But having said that I completely second what dewazai said, we should not stop imperialism because we never were and we are holy, but we should because it is bad.

[Roshina]

Khorey, The discussion is not entirely on Swat, only the last 1-2 pages is. You specfically claimed Yusufzai is the largest tribe of Pashtuns.(As I showed) Me and BLS just corrected you, Its nothing serious though. We are not only discussing Swat, I was merely trying to make you understand on the situation of Swat by posting a passage which explains what happened to the original inhabitants of Swat.

When me and BLS both read what you claimed, we just in a friendly way corrected you.

Hmmmm... okay. As you believe.

[khyaal]

Very very interesting indeed and i would love to see any proof. But i believe and what i have studied , yousafai are sons of yousaf. But still I might be wrong and khiyal some authentic links will be appreciated.

For one thing, the word Yousaf is an Arabic (or perhaps hebrew) word and Islam came to Afghanistan in the 7th century A.D., while Aspzai in the areas of Swat, Buner and Kunar has been been mentioned even by Herodotus in the context of their war with Alexander's Army in those areas. Do you think yousafzai is such a recent Pashtun tribe which appeared after the introduction of Islam to Afghan land?

Another thing, originally there is no word which contains "F" in pure Pashto language, all words containing "F" are imported words from Persian or Arabic languages. Even the word "Afghanistant" is still pronounced by many as "Awghanistan".

The whole topic is concentrating on swat, I must really suck at history but few books i studied, swat was centre for Bhuddas, one of the real non violent people, yousafzai tribe did came and took the land because they loved the weather and the place (who woudn't LOL)

Swat state until Pakistan took it over in 1968 included Buner as part of it.

Now of Bhuddism, I accept it is/was a religion of non-violence, but during the time of Alexander, Buddhism was still in its infancy and we don't know for sure how many people had converted to Bhuddism by that time. So, the effect of Bhuddism as a non-violent religion (to stop tribes from in fights), if any, might have appeared much later.