Pashtuns in Bangladesh?

[Hunter]

Really? I can understand a small number of Pashtuns being in Bangladesh, since a lot of Afghan dynasties have ruled over Bangladesh, but how could Persians and Arabs get there? Trade?

History of Banglastan is very unique. The region of Bengal was very sparsely populated with only Daal eating Hindus. Then when Muslims came all of them settled. 150 million afghanis, Arabs and Persians settled in our land wrora. That's why Bangladesh is so densely populated today! I myself am from the Talukdarzai tribe. Many afghanis who visit bangladesh today claim that the country feels like a second home since we are exactly the same as them. Here is my picture, I look like a pure Pakhtun:


People say I look like John Abraham but I don't see it, I have more typical afghan features.

[Win Butler]

Its a shame no one will ever know who Ghorids really were. They were either Pashtuns or another East iranic group. Apparently now empires who were Persianized Sakastanis (Saffari) and Parthians (Samanids) and never once called themselves Tajiks are now Tajiks. They dont realise most Tajiks in Afghanistan arent actually Tajiks too.

I agree Kushans, Bactrians, Scythian, and Hepthalite were not Pashtuns but our ancestors.

Well the Ghurids never called themselves Afghan or Pashtun, we have a primary source from the Ghurid court, Tabaqat-e-Nasiri. I guess Pashtuns must have nothing to do with them using your logic...(I would disagree with that notion)

Persianized East Iranic=Tajik. Samanids may not have called themselves Tajik but they were based in Khorasan and Transoxiana, propagated Sunni Islam, spoke Persian, and were sedentary. They are most known for the great scholars and poets nurtured in their court who were natives of Bukhara, Balkh, and other areas which are still primarily Tajik today. Were those figures Parthians too? How about the peasants, local aristocracy (dehqans,) governors, scribes (dabirs), Ghazi soldiers, administrators, artistans, etc. who formed the backbone of the empire and were all from the localities I mentioned?! They were mainly Persianized Bactrians, Soghdians, Sakas and Khwarazmians...the ancestors of Tajiks. According to you Tajiks just appeared out of nowhere in the 20th century and all Persian-speaking figures from Central Asia before that were Pashtun or something lel.

Also, genealogy claims by those dynasties were politically motivated. Ghurids and Saffarids (despite being East Iranic) attached themselves to Sassanid glory as well. The fusion of East Iranic and West Iranic (Persian) elements is characteristic of Tajiks. Dynasties like the Tahirids (who were from Herat/Pushang) sough to link themselves to Arab/Muslim figures.

There were claims about the Samanids being of Arab or Turkic stock as well. Official genealogies should not always be taken at face value. As I said, they were based in areas where Tajiks predominate and ultimately it was the locals of Khorasan and Transoxiana who contributed most to the empire. It just proves that Sassanid/Persian culture was considered prestigious in East Iranic lands..

The Nasabriame also informs us that Samankhuda was a native of Farghana with the given name of Arqaq (14). The theory that the Samanids originated from Farghana is interesting, considering that it was the first Samanid governor of that province, Ahmad ibn Asad (15), who was able to manoeuvre his sons into positions of authority throughout Transoxania at the expense of the descendants of his brothers, so that by the time of his death, the whole region was under their control. The sources give no explanation for the rapid ascent of his sons; it may be that their claim to precedence over their cousins was somehow linked to their possession of the family's home territory within the province and some measure of control which they exerted over the neighbouring steppe (16).

The reference to their Farghanan origin may also provide a clue to the Samanids' alleged Turkish ancestry. According to the Jami* al-tawarikh of Rashld al-Dln, the wazir of the Mongol Ilkhans, the Samanids were of Oghuz stock (17). Now the commonly attested genealogy of the Samanids traces their descent from an Iranian forebear, Bahram Chubin, the Sasanian general who won important victories against the Turks of the steppe and tried to usurp the Sasanian throne (18). Iranian genealogies were a common phenomenon among the dynasties of this period, and can be attested for all the major dynasties which ruled in Iran in the 9th and 10th centuries (19). The political function of these genealogies, which were no doubt seen by percipient observers to be legitimatory charters rather than statements of physical descent, was to provide the necessary credentials for rulers who operated in an Iranian cultural environment. In some cases like the Buyids, their credibility was openly contested by contemporary observers who scoffed at the clumsy attempts of parvenu dynasts to disguise their humble origins with fantastic claims to noble descent (20). In other cases, such as that of the Samanids, the claim was widely accepted, no doubt because they fulfilled some of the common expectations of Iranian dynasts and because they were in fact of Iranian descent. (W.L. Treadwell, "The Political History of the Samanid State," pp. 68-69).

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

They were tribal people and they didn't speak Persian, yet you're calling them Tajik. As an added note, Tajiks didn't even appear until the time of the Mongols. Kushans aren't Pashtuns, and neither are Bactrians, Scythians or Hepthalites. It in fact is the other way around, Pashtuns are descendants of all these groups.

Actually there was a time Tajiks were possibly tribal people as well. Furthermore they draw from the Sansab or Wansap clan of Sassanids which suggests they were probability Tajiks or related to people who became modern day Tajiks

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[MENTION=19453]Win Butler[/MENTION]

Interesting citation about the Ghurids I found,

Al-Hind: The Slavic Kings and the Islamic conquest, 11th-13th centuries - Andre Wink - Google Books

[Win Butler]

[MENTION=19453]Win Butler[/MENTION]

Interesting citation about the Ghurids I found,

Al-Hind: The Slavic Kings and the Islamic conquest, 11th-13th centuries - Andre Wink - Google Books

Interesting link. Ghuris and Afghans are also distinguished from each other in Sayfi Herawi's Tarikhnamaye Herat (a history of Herat written during the Kartid period). This is from a chapter where he describes a Kartid military campaign where they attempt to capture an enclosure/compound.

"After the first day two thousand Ghuri, Afghani and Herati men in an attack cast themselves at the door of the compound."



Here he describes Herat’s interactions with the Mongols and Chingiz Khan’s son Tolui Khan. Tolui Khan ravaged the city, killed hundreds of thousands and kidnapped thousands of girls (mentioned earlier, not in the screenshot I provided). Once he coerced the remaining Heratis into accepting Mongol rule he appointed a man by the name of Abu Bakr Morjaqi to govern Herat and a Mongol named منکتاي (Manktay?) as shahnah (sheriff). Tajiks are mentioned here—Heratis say that if Chingiz Khan’s forces make a move and demand troops of the Tajiks (az Tajik chereek talabad), they (Heratis) come before the assistants of other provinces and will give their lives for Tolui Khan. Abu Bakr and Manktay take the Heratis' oath for their word. Heratis eventually rise up against the two and kill them.



About Tarikhnamaye Herat. It mentions Afghanistan multiple times and it is considered a neighboring locality which does NOT include Herat. It uses more Arabic phrases than I'm used to in Farsi prose so some parts are difficult for me; I'll ask relatives or users here to translate other parts.

The first work to have come down to us, albeit in very few manuscripts, is Sayfi’s Tārik-nāma-ye Herāt. The author’s full name was Sayf b. Moḥammad b. Yaʿqub Heravi, about whom we know only what he tells us in his work. He was born in 681/1282; the date of his death is not known, but he must have died after 1321, when his history was completed (Ṣafā, Adabiyāt III, pp. 1240-42). The book is a detailed history of the Kartid rulers and their reign.

HERAT v. LOCAL HISTORIES – Encyclopaedia Iranica

PDFs of Tarikhnamaye Herat, one is from an Iranian site and another Afghan. I used the first one

پيراسته تاريخنامه هرات نسخه pdf

تاریخنامه هرات / تالیف سیف بن محمد یعقوب الهروی


Information about cheriks in relation to the phrase "az Tajik chereek talabad" The Mongols required the Iranic sedentary populations to provide them with troops known as cherik. So Heratis were considered Tajik...lol @ Afghanfootball

Nevertheless, Rašīd-al-Dīn consistently uses the word čerīk in the sense of army (Tārīḵ-e ḡāzānī, pp. 71, 76, 99, 185, 290, 305-6, 324) and also in the collective sense of “the military” (mardom-e čerīk, p. 307). Nomads also were all liable for military service, but the sedentary population was supposed to supply čerīk; each nine families (about 40 people) were to send one man (Petrushevskiĭ, tr. Kešāvarz, II, p. 770).

ČERĪK – Encyclopaedia Iranica

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Interesting link.

I used to be a very hardcore Pashtun centrist some years ago, In fact I was at one time a Taliban supporter in part due to Pashtun-centrism.

But when I started investigating my own nonsense I began to realize that most of my claims were factually baseless and more interpolation than actual evidence or supportive references. Intellectual honesty is so crucial both as an academic and also promoting justice and what's right.

To me intellectual honesty is only way people can restore credibility. To me as a Pashtun I feel no threat nor do I see myself trivializing Pashtuns by accepting that Ghorids were more than likely Tajiks or things of that nature. Pashtuns have their own heritage to honor, we don't need to co-opt someone else's.

[Aryana]

Actually there was a time Tajiks were possibly tribal people as well. Furthermore they draw from the Sansab or Wansap clan of Sassanids which suggests they were probability Tajiks or related to people who became modern day Tajiks

If their Eastern Iranic origin proves to be correct, then yes. However, there is no surviving element of that Eastern Iranic culture amongst Tajiks, I.e. They were fully Persianized. You can argue that the Ghorids weren't Afghans, but there is no evidence to suggest that the Ghorids are Tajiks. We know that when Tajiks first appeared at around that time, they were fully Persianized, and don't have "tribes". The Ghorids however were a tribal people, and there were mentions of their language not being Persian. That clearly points to a non-Tajik origin.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

If their Eastern Iranic origin proves to be correct, then yes. However, there is no surviving element of that Eastern Iranic culture amongst Tajiks, I.e. They were fully Persianized. You can argue that the Ghorids weren't Afghans, but there is no evidence to suggest that the Ghorids are Tajiks. We know that when Tajiks first appeared at around that time, they were fully Persianized, and don't have "tribes". The Ghorids however were a tribal people, and there were mentions of their language not being Persian. That clearly points to a non-Tajik origin.

Well ok you may have a point, I wouldn't say there's "no evidence" but there's reasons to believe they weren't Tajiks, at least as we currently identify them.

You know I think the whole confusion around the "Tribe" thing is because we take English writers statements of "tribes" which they use almost interchangably with "clan". I haven't seen any reference from that era suggesting that the Shansabani were a Tribe.

Have you found anything that might corroborate that?

[Aryana]

Well ok you may have a point, I wouldn't say there's "no evidence" but there's reasons to believe they weren't Tajiks, at least as we currently identify them.

You know I think the whole confusion around the "Tribe" thing is because we take English writers statements of "tribes" which they use almost interchangably with "clan". I haven't seen any reference from that era suggesting that the Shansabani were a Tribe.

Have you found anything that might corroborate that?

Among the numerous Ghorid chiefs, the Shansabani tribe had the most authority over all the other Ghorid tribes

In addition to that, Ghorid rulers used the term "Suri", the first ruler of the dynasty was Sayf ud-Din Suri. Also, in many accounts during the Ghaznavid era, interpreters were needed to travel to Ghor. Why would they need a translator if the inhabitants spoke Farsi?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

In addition to that, Ghorid rulers used the term "Suri", the first ruler of the dynasty was Sayf ud-Din Suri. Also, in many accounts during the Ghaznavid era, interpreters were needed to travel to Ghor. Why would they need a translator if the inhabitants spoke Farsi?

Yes, I know I made this same argument years ago. However "Sur" is also used in some dialects of persian as well. It's not a characteristic indicator of Pashtuns.

For example Persians have a holiday called "Chaharshanbeh Suri"

The reason they may have needed an interpreter could be because the Ghorids spoke Sassani Pahlavi while the Ghaznavids spoke Dari. Even some dialects of Pashto sound drastically different that someone could need an interpreter.

It's just like If you had a Moroccan speak to a Saudi in each of their respective dialects they wouldn't understand each other.

[Aryana]

Yes, I know I made this same argument years ago. However "Sur" is also used in some dialects of persian as well. It's not a characteristic indicator of Pashtuns.

For example Persians have a holiday called "Chaharshanbeh Suri"

The reason they may have needed an interpreter could be because the Ghorids spoke Sassani Pahlavi while the Ghaznavids spoke Dari. Even some dialects of Pashto sound drastically different that someone could need an interpreter.

It's just like If you had a Moroccan speak to a Saudi in each of their respective dialects they wouldn't understand each other.

That is just trying to sugarcoat the idea that the Ghorids were somehow "Persian". All these are speculations and assumptions, there is no basis to show that they spoke Persian (as if they spoke Sassanid Persian, LOL) or that their name is of Persian origin.

[Samandri]

Yes, I know I made this same argument years ago. However "Sur" is also used in some dialects of persian as well. It's not a characteristic indicator of Pashtuns.

For example Persians have a holiday called "Chaharshanbeh Suri"

The reason they may have needed an interpreter could be because the Ghorids spoke Sassani Pahlavi while the Ghaznavids spoke Dari. Even some dialects of Pashto sound drastically different that someone could need an interpreter.

It's just like If you had a Moroccan speak to a Saudi in each of their respective dialects they wouldn't understand each other.

True, even many Hindu families use surname of "Suri"........

[Samandri]

Interesting link. Ghuris and Afghans are also distinguished from each other in Sayfi Herawi's Tarikhnamaye Herat (a history of Herat written during the Kartid period). This is from a chapter where he describes a Kartid military campaign where they attempt to capture an enclosure/compound.

"After the first day two thousand Ghuri, Afghani and Herati men in an attack cast themselves at the door of the compound."







ČERĪK – Encyclopaedia Iranica

Thanks for providing very interesting information............i did have read in a book that Afghanistan is mentioned as neighboring locality in Tarikh-i-nama Herat.....now you have further clarified that Kurt Ghuris are described distinct people from Afghans.

[Samandri]

But if Heratis mentioned as Tajiks, then Heratis, along with Afghans, are mentioned distinct from Ghurids........which means Ghurids were not Tajiks or Persians

[Samandri]

Few weeks ago, an ANP-wala from Mardan active on twitter got angry with me , when i shared "Ghurdis are not Pashtuns by Raverty" there........He refused to even read the article by Raverty. Like a typical nationalist, he first argued that writings of Angraiz are not reliable as they were on anti-Pashtun agenda. Then he threw a fiercer attack , that i must be on agenda of GHQ (Pakistan army) to distort the history of Pashtuns........

Our folk has romanticized and glorified some outlines of the history, and are not interested in reading the details.......Great Ghuri defeated Hindus, he must be a Pashtun......little they know that Pashtuns/Afghans were both in the armies of Ghuri and Hindu Chauhan