Ahmad Shah Baba, your thoughts please.

[ScimitarXEdge]

That's not a fair and balanced assessment of an ethnic group; albeit you are right in this case; Pakhtuns themselves have had their own internal traitors as well, Shah Shuja and Abdur Rahman Khan come to mind, Amanullah Khan on the cultural and ethical level; although not territorial.

There are actually many people of Punjabi origin who are revered even by Shah Waliyullah Dehlawi; Shaikh Ahmad Faruq Sarhandi was a Punjabi descdant of Umar al Faruq(ra) who was responsible for not only founding the Naqshbandi Mujadidi Sufi Tradition; but also in inspiring and being the progenitor of Shah Waliyullah's intellectual thought as well as inspiring the Islamic Revolutions of Abdali; Sayed Sabir Shah Lahori was the one who crowned Ahmad Shah Durrani, Durr-e-Durran. While it maybe true that Many Punjabis had turned on other Muslims and collaborated with Sikhs and the like; it's also true that the very KING of Pashtuns of the time did the same. Could it also be claimed that just as there were Punjabi Muslims who revolted against the Afghan rule; that many Punjabi Muslims were loyal to Afghan rule on account of Islam? We cannot paint everything with the same British.

I understand the animosity of others based on recent historic events but to interpolate the scenario based on recent events is not an intellectually honest approach.

[fzpz]

You actually responded to a brain dead troll? His only obsession is Punjabis. Anyone can become stupid and paint pashtuns, iraqis, tajiks, bengalis in an "unislamic" nature.

SX, these notions arise from the assumption that there is even such a thing "punjabi" ethnicity. Too many saints and immigrants from Persia, Khurasan, Balochistan, and Afghanistan have settled in the Punjab. It's mainly a geographical term, with many ethnic groups and communities living in it. Muslim Punjab even goes back further than the invasions by the Afghans, Multan is one of the first Muslim strongholds in Southasia. Many tombs of muslims exist there, and they're not of native muslim punjabis. Bulleh Shah, Baba Fareeduddin were all of 'foreign' extraction. Not to mention the turkic mughals who ruled from Lahore.

[fzpz]

Mind it Luffy, it's Admiral BT, commandeering his navy to lay siege to Punjab. You and the rest of Paki Pashtuns are all doomed for being Pakjabis.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Religious identities of the "natives" wasn't cemented. Conversions into Islam (and back into hinduism/sikhism) continued in mass up until the British throughout Southasia. These village-wide conversions can only happen if the religious identities haven't been cemented. Either way, a punjabi identity for muslims in punjab has never been a rallying cry. Opportunism, sure. Muslims of Punjab are too ethnically and linguistically diverse to give a hoot about 'punjabiyat'. You have vast portions of Pak Punjab who see themselves as Siraikis, Potwaris, Hindkowans, or Pahari rajputs. This is disregarding the number of people in Punjab who have outside ancestry (pashtun/kashmiri/moghul).

As a monolithic entity, no. On a regional or subnational level, yes.

I haven't come across instances where people changed religions back and forth en masse. It was usually that one tribe or a clan of the tribe changed religions and others did or did not follow suit. One way was possible but a back and forth repeatedly in large numbers, I don't think so. I think its was more of a wave effect initially when a new religion came in- like Islam around 800-900 AD - and then a gradual and slower rate of increase in converts. The same would have happened when Sikhism emerged.

It probably wasnt 'Punjabiyat' at work there. I was trying to think of factors that would lead to Punjabi Muslims joining MRS' forces and though opportunism could have played a role, so could have common ethno-linguistic factors.

[Midnight_Sun]

That's not a fair and balanced assessment of an ethnic group; albeit you are right in this case; Pakhtuns themselves have had their own internal traitors as well, Shah Shuja and Abdur Rahman Khan come to mind, Amanullah Khan on the cultural and ethical level; although not territorial.

I don't see Abdur Rahman Khan as a traitor (to his religion or people) at all. In fact, it was his reasoning and cunning, whether his countrymen damned him for it, that helped create the national ferver that comes with the idea of "Afghanistan." Amanullah Khan was not a traitor in my eyes either, a poor leader probably, but not a traitor.

An example of a real traitor to their religion and region in my eyes would be Mohan Lal, the Kashmiri British agent.

[Michin Khel]

I don't see Abdur Rahman Khan as a traitor (to his religion or people) at all. In fact, it was his reasoning and cunning, whether his countrymen damned him for it, that helped create the national ferver that comes with the idea of "Afghanistan." Amanullah Khan was not a traitor in my eyes either, a poor leader probably, but not a traitor.

An example of a real traitor to their religion and region in my eyes would be Mohan Lal, the Kashmiri British agent.

where are your sentiments for khyber pakhtunkhwa?

[KingKhan]

Abdur Rahman was not a traitor, but a jackass. Thanks alot for selling half your damn country. Stupid idiot.

[Midnight_Sun]

Abdur Rahman Khan was a very intelligent leader along the line of many intelligent double-dealers who had to deal with the Russian-Iranian aggression, the British on one side, and try to create a nation whose borders were never finalized. In the end, he chose the lesser of two evils, the British. The British in turn, helped the Afghans defend their western border from Iran, and helped form a northern border with the expansionist Russians. He himself spread Afghan territory to the East taking Kafiristan, and was only stopped by the British.

If you compare his accomplishments with that of cousin, Ayub Khan, you can see that Abdur Rahman Khan was more of a tactician and a planner, and he was able to extract money and aid from the British to create the first 19th century modernized Afghan army, government, tax system, intelligence network, and international relations. Had the Afghan commies listened to his sound advice to never trust the Russians, we would probably have a different Afghanistan today.

[Midnight_Sun]

where are your sentiments for khyber pakhtunkhwa?

I see it the same as Afghanistan: Poor, unruly, chaotic, brave, noble, beautiful. I really feel sorry for all of Pukhtunkhwa. It lost a lot of it's prominence because of what the British and the Russians (Bolsheviks and Commies) did by closing trade with other major trade cities like Bukhara, restricting the movement of Afghan nomads and traders, cutting families in half, oppressing the peacemakers (Abdul Ghafar Khan), and allowing corruption to take root. That's not even scratching the surface of the Afghan-Soviet War or the ominous intent they had against Afghan leaders, etc.

Ever since Afghans became the hurdle in the plans of the European and Russian empires, they have done everything in their power to weaken and divide them, yet they still persevere.

[Midnight_Sun]

The fanatics Sikhs were called Akalis. Their leader was Akali Phula Singh. They were sticklers to the tenets of the Sikh faith and didnt even spare denouncing Ranjeet Singh for his harems and drunken bouts. The Akalis were the special forces of the army, the ones to lead the charge and the first to break into enemy garrisons.

As much as I highly regard the bravery of the Sikhs, I don't think that is painting the most accurate picture of what happenned at the battle of Nowshera.

Caroe mentions that the Amritsar warrior Akali Phula Singh was slain in battle by the Afghan tribesmen, and his Sikhs tried but failed three times to break through the Pukhtun position at Pir Sabak during the battle for Nowshera. He also mentions:

"At the fourth effort the hill was carried, only through the presence and personal exhortations of Ranjit Singh himself at the head of the survivors of his Gurkhas and his bodyguard of horse. Later Ranjit admitted to Colonel Wade, the British agent at his court, that of his disciplined troops it was the Gurkhas alone who had stood firm under the assaults of the tribesmen." (Caroe . 296-297).

[KhalsaWarrior]

As much as I highly regard the bravery of the Sikhs, I don't think that is painting the most accurate picture of what happenned at the battle of Nowshera.

Caroe mentions that the Amritsar warrior Akali Phula Singh was slain in battle by the Afghan tribesmen, and his Sikhs tried but failed three times to break through the Pukhtun position at Pir Sabak during the battle for Nowshera. He also mentions:

"At the fourth effort the hill was carried, only through the presence and personal exhortations of Ranjit Singh himself at the head of the survivors of his Gurkhas and his bodyguard of horse. Later Ranjit admitted to Colonel Wade, the British agent at his court, that of his disciplined troops it was the Gurkhas alone who had stood firm under the assaults of the tribesmen." (Caroe . 296-297).

I didnt mention Nowshera as that was one of the many engagements (and the last one) that APS and his Nihangs were a part of. I wouldn't base my opinion on one battle or incident. I would look at the guy's career and the campaigns that he was a part of before deciding.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I don't see Abdur Rahman Khan as a traitor (to his religion or people) at all. In fact, it was his reasoning and cunning, whether his countrymen damned him for it, that helped create the national ferver that comes with the idea of "Afghanistan." Amanullah Khan was not a traitor in my eyes either, a poor leader probably, but not a traitor.

An example of a real traitor to their religion and region in my eyes would be Mohan Lal, the Kashmiri British agent.

Well that's a very generous revisionist interpretation; but when we break things down and take everything into account. It was most likely that Abdur Rahman Khan just wanted to maintain his power structure and hence played all these different elements to help him do that. The idea of "state" as it's being defined here is such a Euro-idealized concoction that it can't credibly be defined as serving his people. Even if it created some "ferver". Fever alone is not what makes a trustworthy leader. Well as you said in "your eyes"; I'm not sure what measures you're using, I however would think by logical principles, the fact he wanted to embody European Hegemony on Afghans,via cultural colonization is pretty treacherous. It would be like Mao Tse Tong telling the chinese that they should start doing whatever the Japanese do.

[Midnight_Sun]

Well that's a very generous revisionist interpretation; but when we break things down and take everything into account. It was most likely that Abdur Rahman Khan just wanted to maintain his power structure and hence played all these different elements to help him do that. The idea of "state" as it's being defined here is such a Euro-idealized concoction that it can't credibly be defined as serving his people. Even if it created some "ferver". Fever alone is not what makes a trustworthy leader. Well as you said in "your eyes"; I'm not sure what measures you're using, I however would think by logical principles, the fact he wanted to embody European Hegemony on Afghans,via cultural colonization is pretty treacherous. It would be like Mao Tse Tong telling the chinese that they should start doing whatever the Japanese do.

You didn't necessarily state what would Afghanistan become without Abdur Rahman Khan. If not a state, then what? Who was going to allow a people's revolution to occur in Afghanistan in the end of the 19th century? Iran, fueld by Russian desires, was invading from the West, Russia proper from the North, the British from the East. Meanwhile, the French were even having dreams of taking India via Afghanistan. All those nations were imperial and Christian and one of them, Russia, was intent on wiping out every Muslim nation in Asia. For Abdur Rahman Khan to deal with such treachery from the Imperial powers is brilliant in it's own right.

Sir Alfred Lyall, a British poet once stated about Abdur-Rahman Khan's position aptly titled the Amir's Soliloquy:

But all his ways are warnings; and I, God's slave, must lead,
How I bargain for help with the Kafir, or lean on a venomous reed;
For never chief more sorely need Heaven for his aid and stay,
Than the man who would reign in this country, and tame Afghans for a day,
I look from a fort half-ruined on Kabul spreading below,
On the near hills, crowned with cannon, and the far hills piled with snow;
Fair are the vales well-watered, and the vines on the uplands swell,
You might think you are reigning in Heaven-I know I am ruling in Hell.

Abdur Rahman speaks a lot in his own memoirs of what his critics say about him, and he is completely un-apologetic, and rightly so. While Ayub Khan and Sher Ali were fighting Pyhrric victories and suffering huge losses of territory, Abdur Rahman Khan was forging a country in transition.

[Michin Khel]

I am not getting midnight-sun. This amir abdul rehman sold pure pashtun areas from chitral to quetta to british. Today population of pashtuns in pakistan make two third of total pashtun population which means this namard ruler did'nt care that majority of his people will come under occupation of non-muslim farangis. We were sold to british , yet we are blamed for being desified.
This amir adul rehman (by the way he looks like maulana fazlur rehman) should be given blame for division of pashtuns, he sold us to 12 lakhs per annum

[Midnight_Sun]

I am aware it is a very emotional topic, but as someone who loves to read, and loves to assess the limitations and expectations of leadership by Afghan leaders, I think Abdur Rahman Khan had no choice.

In fact, Pukhtunkhwa was lost before Abdur Rahman Khan signed that treaty, and that was mostly because of other Afghan leaders being divided and fighting amongst themselves while the British and their Punjabi allies divided up the region. The real reason why it was signed was to end the encroachment of all nations into Afghanistan. If he didn't sign, Afghanistan would have been split up among 3 rivals: Russia, British India, and Iran.

Would it have been a better fate? We can always speculate.