Pakistan Census 2017 (pashtun Population)

[Razor]

They're two extremes of the same continuum.

Really, so if are talking about "continuums" then you cannot logically exclude Pashtun/Hindko/Balochi regions either. I am sure you are aware that Indians don't exclude those regions and they are known as "historical India".

[Charsi Malang]

What the hell is "historical India" now? See my points above. It doesnt exist.
Indus valley civilisation has nothing to do with modern India.
Pashtuns are very well represented in Pakistani identity.

I am Shia Mirpuri from Azad Kashmir btw. We are barely represented if you want to nitpick.

How are Pashtuns represented in Pakistani identity? Pakistani identity means you speak Urdu/Punjabi not Pashto. Pakistani identity is basically an offshoot of Indian identity with a huge sprinkling of outward Islam to make it appear different.

Worldwide Pakistanis are seen as Islamicized Indians which Pakistanis don't even realise themselves.

You are a Mirpuri so basically your ancestral language is very close to Punjabi but with differences so I would say you are represented within Pakistani identity.

[Charsi Malang]

Really, so if are talking about "continuums" then you cannot logically exclude Pashtun/Hindko/Balochi regions either. I am sure you are aware that Indians don't exclude those regions and they are known as "historical India".

Baluch and Pashtun regions have never been known as part of historical India whilst the Tamil regions you have mentioned in other posts have. If you read British accounts of India you can quote easily tell that as soon as the river Indus was crossed westwards it was very apparent that they weren't in India anymore for the difference in everything was too great.

One country -an established old country can have many different languages like India but they all fall within the same national sphere. Punjab, Sindh, all of these come under the Indian category. Only anthropologists would present arguments to refute that. For all practical purposes they are classed within the same bracket.

[maneatinglizard]

You implied here that Pashto wasn't as respected in Afghanistan before which actually brings me to a question I've had. I have come across Afghan Pashtuns who spoke Pashto instead of Farsi because their parents didn't teach them Pashto. This also squared with things that I heard about Farsi being considered an "elite" language in Afghanistan. I have also noticed that the Afghan Pashtun elite tend to be very persianized. Can you enlighten me about this phenomenon?

Persian was the lingua franca of the eastern Islamic world for a long time, and Afghanistan was no different. In fact, it's probably more Persianized than other countries because of its close proximity and historical relationship with Persia. So the governments of Afghanistan, as well as elites, generally conducted matters in Farsi. This is probably the reason for why it took so long for a Pashto writing system to develop. Anyone who needed to write spoke Farsi, and Farsi was also spoken by the surrounding governments, as well as the language in which most religious and secular scholarship was conducted. So there was never a need to write in Pashto.

This naturally led to Farsi being seen as a more prestigious language among the elite, and so lots of Pashtuns in Kabul (and other cities dominated by Farsi, but mostly Kabul) spoke Farsi better than they did Pashto. In rural areas people still spoke Pashto, to the the point that I've heard that just a few decades ago rural people didn't even know what Farsi was, let alone speak it. Now, Pashtuns are making a concerted effort to speak Pashto and elevate the language to a position equal or above Farsi. Pashto institutions make an effort to keep things purely Pashto. In fact, they've probably taken things too far, as they'll actively avoid using any word that is also used in Farsi. Whether the word might be native to Pashto or not, and how ingrained into standard Pashto speech doesn't seem to matter as long as it also exists in Farsi. The annoying thing is that a lot of people don't seem to be nearly as strict with avoiding English borrowings. If you've ever tried to watch Afghan news in Pashto, you may notice that it can sometimes be hard to understand or sound artificial, and I think one of the reasons is this insistence on avoiding any Farsi words. Not using words like كار or زخم just seems pointless when they're so commonly used in everyday speech.

The funny thing is that I think this new emphasis on Pashto may have partly come about as a reaction to Tajik/Persian nationalism. Back when Tajiks quietly accepted Pashtun dominance, elite Pashtuns had no problem speaking their language while still looking down on them. Now that the balance of power has shifted in the opposite direction, Pashtuns have put a much bigger emphasis on their own language as a way to differentiate themselves from the Tajiks.

[Razor]

How are Pashtuns represented in Pakistani identity? Pakistani identity means you speak Urdu/Punjabi not Pashto. Pakistani identity is basically an offshoot of Indian identity with a huge sprinkling of outward Islam to make it appear different.

If you consider Pakistani identity as an offshoot of Indian identity then you are willfully ignorant.
If anything, the North Indian identity is an offshoot of the Muslim identity of Indus valley, which itself is an offshoot of Mughal identity that arrived from Central Asia. Look at South or Eastern Indian states if you want to see what native hindu cultures looks like. You are blatantly ignoring the North and South India divide despite the fact that they are all Hindus.

You are a Mirpuri so basically your ancestral language is very close to Punjabi but with differences so I would say you are represented within Pakistani identity.

What is it with you and lumping entire languages, people, cultures into soundbites? Is it because you are unable to remember them or are you hellbent on denying people their own identities?
Its funny how you are repeating age old Indian lies that were meant to help them out in the Kashmir dispute. Give me a break.

Baluch and Pashtun regions have never been known as part of historical India whilst the Tamil regions you have mentioned in other posts have. If you read British accounts of India you can quote easily tell that as soon as the river Indus was crossed westwards it was very apparent that they weren't in India anymore for the difference in everything was too great.

Both Balochistan and Pashtun areas of Gandhara are considered part of "historical India". You are choosing to draw a line on this imaginary concept because it suits your ideas. Why do you think they claim to have invented zero when the manuscript was found somewhere near Peshawar?

One country -an established old country can have many different languages like India but they all fall within the same national sphere. Punjab, Sindh, all of these come under the Indian category. Only anthropologists would present arguments to refute that. For all practical purposes they are classed within the same bracket.

This "national sphere" does not exist. There is no scientific, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, religious or even historical basis for this "national sphere". You cannot name a single thing that this sphere has in common that doesn't also include Afghanistan and Balochistan.

Your issue is that you are comparing this concept of India with Persia and Arabia. There is literally no comparison. A Persian nation actually existed. They had a common language, culture and religion. This "Indian sphere" has never had any of that.

[Markhor]

How are Pashtuns represented in Pakistani identity? Pakistani identity means you speak Urdu/Punjabi not Pashto.

Who told you that being Pakistani means you cannot speak regional languages? What a dumb statement.

[Charsi Malang]

Who told you that being Pakistani means you cannot speak regional languages? What a dumb statement.

How can you be a Pakistani and speak a regional language which is spoken by your brethren across the border and then claim a separate identity? Punjabis In both Punjabs speak the same language and Pashtuns on both sides of the border speak the same language and both groups share the same history.

Being Pakistani means your language is Urdu. Haven't you ever heard the saying "Urdu humaree pehchaan hai"? What on Earth do you think that means? It means Urdu is our identity-it is what we are recognised by. The same way as Baluch are recognised by Baluchi, Pashtuns are recognised by Pashto and Sindhis and Punjabis are recognised by their respective languages-NOT DNA AND CHROMOSOMAL TESTS.

You cannot stop people speaking regional languages but you can ram a third language down everyones throats and tell them that it is theirs.
You cannot create a country and impose another identity and language and identity in the people who to start with share a common identity and history with a neighbouring country.

[Charsi Malang]

If you consider Pakistani identity as an offshoot of Indian identity then you are willfully ignorant.
If anything, the North Indian identity is an offshoot of the Muslim identity of Indus valley, which itself is an offshoot of Mughal identity that arrived from Central Asia. Look at South or Eastern Indian states if you want to see what native hindu cultures looks like. You are blatantly ignoring the North and South India divide despite the fact that they are all Hindus.



What is it with you and lumping entire languages, people, cultures into soundbites? Is it because you are unable to remember them or are you hellbent on denying people their own identities?
Its funny how you are repeating age old Indian lies that were meant to help them out in the Kashmir dispute. Give me a break.



Both Balochistan and Pashtun areas of Gandhara are considered part of "historical India". You are choosing to draw a line on this imaginary concept because it suits your ideas. Why do you think they claim to have invented zero when the manuscript was found somewhere near Peshawar?



This "national sphere" does not exist. There is no scientific, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, religious or even historical basis for this "national sphere". You cannot name a single thing that this sphere has in common that doesn't also include Afghanistan and Balochistan.

Your issue is that you are comparing this concept of India with Persia and Arabia. There is literally no comparison. A Persian nation actually existed. They had a common language, culture and religion. This "Indian sphere" has never had any of that.

What Muslim identity of the Indus Valley are you talking about?

Pakistani culture is NOT Mughal culture. Mughals were Central Asians-Turkic- there is nothing remotely Turkic about Pakistani identity. Pakistan in everything is closest in culture to India than any nation on Earth. The Mughals over the centuries became Indianized themselves. Mughal language was not Urdu-Urdu was a "lashkari tongue" created so all the different people in the "lashkars" could understand each other. It was a language designed so that people in INDIA could communicate with each other. An Urdu speaker and a Hindi speaker will have no problems at all communicating with each other.

[Charsi Malang]

If you consider Pakistani identity as an offshoot of Indian identity then you are willfully ignorant.
If anything, the North Indian identity is an offshoot of the Muslim identity of Indus valley, which itself is an offshoot of Mughal identity that arrived from Central Asia. Look at South or Eastern Indian states if you want to see what native hindu cultures looks like. You are blatantly ignoring the North and South India divide despite the fact that they are all Hindus.



What is it with you and lumping entire languages, people, cultures into soundbites? Is it because you are unable to remember them or are you hellbent on denying people their own identities?
Its funny how you are repeating age old Indian lies that were meant to help them out in the Kashmir dispute. Give me a break.



Both Balochistan and Pashtun areas of Gandhara are considered part of "historical India". You are choosing to draw a line on this imaginary concept because it suits your ideas. Why do you think they claim to have invented zero when the manuscript was found somewhere near Peshawar?



This "national sphere" does not exist. There is no scientific, linguistic, ethnic, cultural, religious or even historical basis for this "national sphere". You cannot name a single thing that this sphere has in common that doesn't also include Afghanistan and Balochistan.

Your issue is that you are comparing this concept of India with Persia and Arabia. There is literally no comparison. A Persian nation actually existed. They had a common language, culture and religion. This "Indian sphere" has never had any of that.

You would have to be completely retarded to think that the Indian "sphere" includes Afghanistan and Baluchistan. This is something that all Indians and Pakistanis believe for some reason. For some reason you refuse to accept that Afghanistan and the Pashtun belt as well as Baluch areas are completely different in everything to the everything else that represents India.

[Friends of Baloch]

Baluch and Pashtun regions have never been known as part of historical India whilst the Tamil regions you have mentioned in other posts have. If you read British accounts of India you can quote easily tell that as soon as the river Indus was crossed westwards it was very apparent that they weren't in India anymore for the difference in everything was too great.

One country -an established old country can have many different languages like India but they all fall within the same national sphere. Punjab, Sindh, all of these come under the Indian category. Only anthropologists would present arguments to refute that. For all practical purposes they are classed within the same bracket.

This is mostly accurate, but it isnt as simple as the river Indus neatly marking where India begins.

For example in Achaemenid Persian records from the reign of Darius I, India did not start either at or only east of the Indus, it included some land west of it too. This was both a geographical consideration and based on the racial/cultural demography about what kind of people were living there. The Alexander Chronicles corroborate the same thing as the Persian sources, and from the Indians own perspective that is what they considered too.

Your confusion probably arises from the changes in the demographics that have taken place over time west of the Indus in what is now Balochistan and what is now Pakhtunkhwa.

Balochistan for example as it exists today (both sides of it) isnt historically a single region but comprises of land from four different regions: Sistan, Makran, Afghanistan and India.

In much of eastern Balochistan the native peoples living there were originally Indian/Dravidian tribes before the Baloch are believed to have started arriving in the area and slowly push eastwards from circa 11th century CE. These Indic natives still exist in the Brauhis, Loris, gypsies/Jats, and obviously others became absorbed after some generations among some of the Baloch tribes too.

Similarly some parts of what is now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, particularly Peshwar and the lowland areas were not originally Pashtun lands. Peshawar was orginally an Indian city centuries before these areas were eventually settled by Pashtun tribes and the local Indian poulations diminshed/killed or were expelled from the land and replaced by Afghans. The remnants of the original Indian population of these areas that are now Pashtuns lands are Hindkowans/Gujjars etc

So, it depends on what era of history you are talking about, and whether you are talking about geography or peoples, eg, Pashtuns were not living in the area of Peshawar when Alexander invaded India and Baloch did not exist when Sistan was a Sassanian 'quarter' of their 'Iranshahr' etc. The demographics of these two places from those two different eras as examples are very different from the demographics and identity of those places today.

Pashtuns and Baloch are not from or related to Indian civilization. But some of the land that Pashtuns and Baloch now inhabit was at one time Indian lands before Baloch and Pashtuns arrived there and became the dominat group.

It is only in the immediate environs of the actual Indus and east of it that foreign invasions have made no impact on the native Indian demographics and which is why from the Indus to the Bay of Bengal the Indian population has remained unchanged for some 3500 years or so.

But west of the Indus some very significant demographic shifts have taken place within the past few hundred years, with Afghans and Baloch eventually replacing Indians and emerging as the dominant groups over the Indians and all of the other smaller peoples living on the fringes in places like Kohistan and Chitral that were neither Indian or Afghan historically but are now dominated by Pashtuns today.

[Markhor]

How can you be a Pakistani and speak a regional language which is spoken by your brethren across the border and then claim a separate identity? Punjabis In both Punjabs speak the same language and Pashtuns on both sides of the border speak the same language and both groups share the same history.

Being Pakistani means your language is Urdu. Haven't you ever heard the saying "Urdu humaree pehchaan hai"? What on Earth do you think that means? It means Urdu is our identity-it is what we are recognised by. The same way as Baluch are recognised by Baluchi, Pashtuns are recognised by Pashto and Sindhis and Punjabis are recognised by their respective languages-NOT DNA AND CHROMOSOMAL TESTS.

You cannot stop people speaking regional languages but you can ram a third language down everyones throats and tell them that it is theirs.
You cannot create a country and impose another identity and language and identity in the people who to start with share a common identity and history with a neighbouring country.

How can you be a Pakistani and speak a regional language which is spoken by your brethren across the border and then claim a separate identity? Punjabis In both Punjabs speak the same language and Pashtuns on both sides of the border speak the same language and both groups share the same history.

Why is that such a unique and exclusive thing for Pakistan? There are dozens of other multiethnic nation states whose bordering provinces share the same language and Culture. You can speak Urdu and Pashto the same time without having any ego issues with it . I speak Pashto at home, Urdu with my Sindhi/Balochi/Kashmiri friends and English at University. Grow up and deal with it . Pakistan's Identity is not just tied down to Urdu.

You cannot create a country and impose another identity and language and identity in the people who to start with share a common identity and history with a neighbouring country.

If you are not happy with the way things are you are free to live abroad in a country of supreme identity. Which I am sure you already are. the way you make it seem as if somebody is forcing you to speak Urdu . You are free to speak or propagate any language inside Pakistan without any hassle . Urdu will only facilitate the process of understanding hundreds of other Ethnicities of who's language you don't understand.

[Razor]

What Muslim identity of the Indus Valley are you talking about?

Pakistani culture is NOT Mughal culture. Mughals were Central Asians-Turkic- there is nothing remotely Turkic about Pakistani identity.

Indus Valley is a geographic region. Its synonymous with Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir valley and KPK.
This region accepted Islam around the same time 1200 years ago, and this region has a shared Mughal heritage which is what defined Pakistan. Please read this slowly so that you understand it. Mughal Influence is not the same as actually being a descendant of Central Asian tribes.
I already told you several times. Mughal culture evolved. Mughals were originally Mongols, so your argument holds no water. The funny thing is that you have no problem calling Mughals, "Indians".
What next? Mughals were Hindus? Is that what you believe?

You would have to be completely retarded to think that the Indian "sphere" includes Afghanistan and Baluchistan. This is something that all Indians and Pakistanis believe for some reason. For some reason you refuse to accept that Afghanistan and the Pashtun belt as well as Baluch areas are completely different in everything to the everything else that represents India.

Are you completely incapable of reading the English language? I just told you that this single Indian Sphere does not even exist. You on the other hand DO believe in this concept, but you conveniently want Punjabis/Sindhis to be lumped along with Dravidians, South and East Indians, while removing Pashtuns and Balochis.

In much of eastern Balochistan the native peoples living there were originally Indian/Dravidian tribes before the Baloch are believed to have started arriving in the area and slowly push eastwards from circa 11th century CE. These Indic natives still exist in the Brauhis, Loris, gypsies/Jats, and obviously others became absorbed after some generations among some of the Baloch tribes too.

Similarly some parts of what is now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, particularly Peshwar and the lowland areas were not originally Pashtun lands. Peshawar was orginally an Indian city centuries before these areas were eventually settled by Pashtun tribes and the local Indian poulations diminshed/killed or were expelled from the land and replaced by Afghans. The remnants of the original Indian population of these areas that are now Pashtuns lands are Hindkowans/Gujjars etc

This has to be the strongest evidence that this lunatic is Indian. This is what Hindu nationalists believe, word for word.

[Samandri]

This has to be the strongest evidence that this lunatic is Indian. This is what Hindu nationalists believe, word for word.

Friend of Baluch is right. Pashtuns still use the term Hindi or Hindki for the aborigines of Peshawar valley. The so called Seraiki people of Dera Ismail Khan, Mianwali etc and Potoharis are also called Hindki by us.

[Friends of Baloch]

Indus Valley is a geographic region. Its synonymous with Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir valley and KPK.
This region accepted Islam around the same time 1200 years ago, and this region has a shared Mughal heritage which is what defined Pakistan. Please read this slowly so that you understand it. Mughal Influence is not the same as actually being a descendant of Central Asian tribes.
I already told you several times. Mughal culture evolved. Mughals were originally Mongols, so your argument holds no water. The funny thing is that you have no problem calling Mughals, "Indians".
What next? Mughals were Hindus? Is that what you believe?




Are you completely incapable of reading the English language? I just told you that this single Indian Sphere does not even exist. You on the other hand DO believe in this concept, but you conveniently want Punjabis/Sindhis to be lumped along with Dravidians, South and East Indians, while removing Pashtuns and Balochis.





This has to be the strongest evidence that this lunatic is Indian. This is what Hindu nationalists believe, word for word.

Lol, look at this cheapskate, desperate paki guy trying to beg people to think of them as "Mughal". It will never happen.

You think that calling other people "Indian" is insulting to them but it isnt, it is only insulting to you because you are an insecure paki with no identity and an inferiority complex against your own ancestors, history and culture. It is just laughable when a paki tries to call somebody else "Indian". Indian is what you are, not us.

And who cares about "Hindu nationalists"? You're a descendant of some low caste Hindu yourself but like a typical paki suffering from Dravidian inferiority complex you try to make up a fabricated history and want to identify with the superior peoples and cultures that slaughtered and ruled your ancestors even though you have no connection to them and these foreign invaders humiliated and ruled your people. What a pathetic low life and self hater you are,

"Mughals" lol...! You're not a "Mughal" you fool, you're a Jat, an Indian, and since 1947, a "paki" thanks to the "Britishers" ..

Stinking pakis werent even Muslims when Babur invaded your Bundjab and slaughtered your ancestors. Most of you Dalits started converting to Islam long after the period of the 'Great' Mughals had ceased to exist. Why do you think Aurangzeb had to end up trying to become the opposite of Akbar? It was too late for him by then anyway. Idiot, lol. The actual Mughals were tiny in number and ruled India with the collaboration of Hindus and even intermarriage with smelly Hindu Rajputs. Just like your inferiority complex suffering Hindu nationalist brothers from the other side of the British invented Radcliffe line that try to rewrite that part of their history, you clearly know nothing about the Mughal empire and are trying to fabricate history too because you are ashamed of your native culture and identity.

Silly Jat settler that was brought to Kashmir and settled there by Ranjeet Singh, you have no clue about anything not even your own identity, lol, and you will never convince anyone that you are anything but a retarded Indian with a deep self-loathing and pathetic, snivelling fetish for the foreign conquerors of your weakling people.

You're a typical weirdo South Asian "brown sahib" and are no different from all those grotesque mentally colonized Indians and pakis that collaborated with the British during colonial rule over them and still to this day try to emulate, act, talk like their former British masters while putting themselves and their own people down, lol... The only difference is the colonial ruler of your stinking people you want to be thought of as being on par with is the "Mughals" rather than the more recent "Britishers" which is the more typical foreign "saheebs" your servile people try and emulate

Subcontinentals are such a deeply colonized and weak race of people. None of them want to claim themselves and own up to what they really are! They want to be "Mughals" or "British" or whatever other tiny number of foreign invader attacked, humiliated and ruled them for centuries.

[maneatinglizard]

Is Mordarkhor really a Pashtun? Doesn't talk like one at all.

Indus Valley is a geographic region. Its synonymous with Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir valley and KPK.
This region accepted Islam around the same time 1200 years ago, and this region has a shared Mughal heritage which is what defined Pakistan.

You really know nothing about history, do you? Punjab has been Muslim for 1200 years? lol, let's consult your Baba Babur once again:

Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans ; they call a pagan a Hindu.

The Babur-nama in English pg. 518

You can take a guess as to where he was when he said that (hint: it wasn't Hindu dominated South India).

Please read this slowly so that you understand it. Mughal Influence is not the same as actually being a descendant of Central Asian tribes.
I already told you several times. Mughal culture evolved. Mughals were originally Mongols, so your argument holds no water. The funny thing is that you have no problem calling Mughals, "Indians".
What next? Mughals were Hindus? Is that what you believe?

The only influence of the Mughals we've confirmed in this thread is hating Indians, so unless you want to accept that your self-hate is the only cultural legacy you have inherited from the Mughals, I suggest you find some actual examples of Mughal influence on your culture.

Are you completely incapable of reading the English language? I just told you that this single Indian Sphere does not even exist. You on the other hand DO believe in this concept, but you conveniently want Punjabis/Sindhis to be lumped along with Dravidians, South and East Indians, while removing Pashtuns and Balochis.

You sound like a spoiled kid here. Who cares what you said with zero evidence? Prove your claims or shut up. You don't get to make claims here and expect us to believe them like a blind Pakistani nationalist would.

Even though the first time may have almost killed you, let me quote your Baba-i-Punjab Babur once again regarding the Indian cultural sphere:

"Once the water of Sind is crossed, everything is in the Hindustan way (tariq) land, water, tree, rock, people and horde, opinion and custom."

The Babur-nama in English pg. 484

Now, face what the founder of your Mughal culture said regarding your ancestors, or go away.

This has to be the strongest evidence that this lunatic is Indian. This is what Hindu nationalists believe, word for word.

What Hindu nationalists believe has nothing to do with truth and reality. Friends of Baloch is largely correct with his history of the region. Don't blame reality for disagreeing with you.