Pashtuns in Bangladesh?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

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.

You could say the whole "well they needed an interpreter" claim is some sugarcoated way to suggest they speak Pashto.

The thing is they definitely spoke Farsi, the relics in Ghorids series show documents in Farsi, also there's no known Shansabani or Wisnasp clan among Pashtuns.

Wisnasp is a Middle Persian (Pahlavi) so it would make sense they may have needed to have translators if they spoke Pahlavi.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

.......

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

People who argue the conspiracy theory approach when information appears that they don't like are very insecure and anti-intellectual

Now don't misunderstand me, there may have in fact been instances of some "Anti-Pashtun" interests, however we have to call into question the likelihood of such a thing in every case.

Most people of the region don't speak English, most of the English writers/historians are writing to an English audience. What motive would they have to claim the Ghurids weren't Pashtuns to people who have no political or economic benefit with regards to this?

Using Occam's Razor, we can see such a claim is just an obfuscation tactic and diversion by people who just don't want reality to say something contrary to their heart's desire.

Now in a case like Saragarhi; the British DO have a Political Interest in promoting that a handful of Sikhs went up and defeated 5000 Pashtuns, something with so many internal contradictions and holes. While writing to a English speaking Audience, it's essentially about British power and the need to maintain the prestige of Britain and Europeans in validating their over all desire to maintain Western Hegemony. Now this isn't necessarily consistent with Occam's Razor but a feasible argument can be made by why the British/UNESCO has earnest interest in promoting or mythologizing this battle.

The same can't be said about the Ghurids and their Nion-Pashtun origins.

[Samandri]

People who argue the conspiracy theory approach when information appears that they don't like are very insecure and anti-intellectual

Now don't misunderstand me, there may have in fact been instances of some "Anti-Pashtun" interests, however we have to call into question the likelihood of such a thing in every case.

Most people of the region don't speak English, most of the English writers/historians are writing to an English audience. What motive would they have to claim the Ghurids weren't Pashtuns to people who have no political or economic benefit with regards to this?

Using Occam's Razor, we can see such a claim is just an obfuscation tactic and diversion by people who just don't want reality to say something contrary to their heart's desire.

Now in a case like Saragarhi; the British DO have a Political Interest in promoting that a handful of Sikhs went up and defeated 5000 Pashtuns, something with so many internal contradictions and holes. While writing to a English speaking Audience, it's essentially about British power and the need to maintain the prestige of Britain and Europeans in validating their over all desire to maintain Western Hegemony. Now this isn't necessarily consistent with Occam's Razor but a feasible argument can be made by why the British/UNESCO has earnest interest in promoting or mythologizing this battle.

The same can't be said about the Ghurids and their Nion-Pashtun origins.

Well said.


About Saragarhi, i have extensively consulted the British sources .........not a single source or report of 1898 glorify or exaggerate the incident. No British source of those years make the claim that 10 thousands or 5 thousands Afghans attacked the hill fort...........Its work of Sikhs and Indians of nowadays to create hype around it (Sikh clowns also have created a story that they forced Pashtuns to wear Shalwar Kamees). British sources have not given any numbers of the attackers on Saraghari fort. The only fact confirmed to them was that each and every defender was killed by Afghans, and the fort was leveled to the ground. Later general Lockhart claimed that Rabia Khel clan of Orakzais, who were loyal to British, informed him that around 200 Pashtuns were killed in attempt to capture saragarhi. The pro-British Rabia Khels could be lying or saying the truth, same is case with claim of Lockhart. British paid tribute to the fallen Sikhs which was customary. Its obvious that this hype around saragharhi is rather relatively recent, promoted by Indians to show their superiority over Pakistanis and Afghans...By the way Sikh clowns and Indians also have seemed to create this story of UNESCO publishing story of Saragrahi as "eight stories of collective bravery"......its neither found in web (not even on UNESCO site) nor in any published form.......in search results only Indians are found claiming it. No one one knows all the names of the so called eight battles

There is nothing spectacular and brave about 21 Sikhs. They were on height and were firing artillery on the Pashtuns below who were bound to take heavier casualties. Pashtuns were without artillery and it is said that they made use of fire and smoke to mask their presence and reach up to the fort. Its actually Pashtuns who displayed a great deal of bravery to bring down the fort despite of odds.

[Samandri]

[Win Butler]

How have you come to this conclusion that Heratis were Tajiks? Please give me one source which mentions the word Tajik out of the north.

I already provided one and explained the context here, from Tarikhnama-ye-Herat:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/pashtun-history-/30829-pashtuns-bangladesh-10.html#post792249

Here's another one from the famous Sufi poet Jami, who was born in Ghor. He considered himself Tajik. If he had been born in the 10th century when that term was not in vogue you would claim he has nothing to do with Tajiks and was a Pashtun, lel. From Mirza Shokorzadah's Tajikan dar Maseer-e-Tarikh

و یا جامی اشاره*ای دارد در باره علیشیر نوایی که:
او که یک ترک بود و من تاجیک، هردو داشتیم خویشی نزدیک.

^And Jami has a reference about Ali Sher Nawai (famous Chaghatay Turk poet) saying-He was a Turk and I a Tajik; we had a close relationship

کابلستان - کتاب تاجکان در مسیر تاریخ

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

I already provided one and explained the context here, from Tarikhnama-ye-Herat:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/pashtun-history-/30829-pashtuns-bangladesh-10.html#post792249

Here's another one from the famous Sufi poet Jami, who was born in Ghor. He considered himself Tajik. If he had been born in the 10th century when that term was not in vogue you would claim he has nothing to do with Tajiks and was a Pashtun, lel. From Mirza Shokorzadah's Tajikan dar Maseer-e-Tarikh

و یا جامی اشاره*ای دارد در باره علیشیر نوایی که:
او که یک ترک بود و من تاجیک، هردو داشتیم خویشی نزدیک.

^And Jami has a reference about Ali Sher Nawai (famous Chaghatay Turk poet) saying-He was a Turk and I a Tajik; we had a close relationship

کابلستان - کتاب تاجکان در مسیر تاریخ

I think with this evidence adds strong support to the claim that Ghorids were Tajiks.

[Golden]

Ghauris were pathans, their decendents in India claim to be pathans. See famous muhajir MQM politician Babar Ghauri. Another famous Ghauri is former supermodel Yasmeen Ghauri, half muhajir pathan and half german.