how to reply to people who claim pashtuns have

[pashtun2121]

bin conquered by alexander or mongols or turks or mughals or nader shah and his turkish and persian army

having a debate with a gujarati who claims pashtuns have bin conqauered
by all of the groups listed below what is the best way to debunk this
and any referances would be helpfull

[pashtun2121]

on wikipedia one of which claims that marathas had at one point ruled a part
of pashtun region http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...er_Pakhtunkhwa can
someone help discredit this and does anyone know if any pashtun invaded the
marathas in maharashtra

[Wahe Guru]

on wikipedia one of which claims that marathas had at one point ruled a part
of pashtun region http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...er_Pakhtunkhwa can
someone help discredit this and does anyone know if any pashtun invaded the
marathas in maharashtra

Marathas were not able to expand into Punjab or further north west. Sikhs from Patiala rulers stopped Marathas trying to enter Punjab.

[Karachi]

^ no they didn't, there was no battle between Marathas and Sikhs, they were on one side

[Wahe Guru]

^ no they didn't, there was no battle between Marathas and Sikhs, they were on one side

I think Maratha rule in Punjab lasted about T-5 seconds, but let me check and get back to you later. No body (Sikhs or Hindus or Muslims) really helped Marathas in north India because they did not want their rule in that area.

Marathas however were very strong in their main areas that they conquered. They were over-confident in the north, over-stretched and in too much of a hurry so they failed in north.

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

pashtuns have been conquered its just none of the conquerers could last long

[khushal]

bin conquered by alexander or mongols or turks or mughals or nader shah and his turkish and persian army

having a debate with a gujarati who claims pashtuns have bin conqauered
by all of the groups listed below what is the best way to debunk this
and any referances would be helpfull

There is a whole thread about it. Read the whole thing, there are interesting point on both sides and let me know if you have any questions.

http://www.pashtunforums.com/pashtun-history-8/any-nation-ever-tried-conquer-afghanistan-24799/

[Kushan Prince]

pashtuns have been conquered its just none of the conquerers could last long

Wrong.


They were invaded but not conquered.

[Kushan Prince]

Lol gujratis like other North Indians have all been conquered by Pashtuns in the past. Apparently the Marhtas are forgetting the devestating results of the battle of panipat which pashtuns had won.

[pashtun2121]

wahe guru why do sikhs claim to have conquered all of afghanistan when their is not one peice of evidence for this or make claims that mothers across afghanistan used the name nalwa to scare their children yet fail to provide evidence

i told the guju about the third battle of paniput and his reply was that claim that marathas had invaded pashtun lands and pashtuns never invaded any land of the marathas but i did tell him to research what pashtuns have done to gujaratis

what was the mughals and the turk nadar shah impact on afghanistan and did either one really rule over afghanistan

and the history of the tribal regions in pakistan what is the best way to reply back to the guju claim that the british had conquered the land in that region

[khushal]

The Lodis who were pashtun ruled over south Asia for centuries and the backbone of the Moghul army were pashtun.

India was always ruled by outside powers, what is this Indian guy talking about. Even today they are ruled, they have been Angloized. More people speak English in India and follow English customs than they do their own. That is what conquered means.

Indians are a passive lot who hate to lead but love to be led.

[pashtun2121]

so with the guju it started with him throwing insults about muslims being poor and living on welfar in the west and putting down muslims cause of israels military accomplishments so gave him a reply regarding pashtun military accomplishments

an talked about india military history and the guju guy made claims of afghanistan being conquered many times and would claim south indians and himilayan hindus like the gurkhas had only bin conquered by the british and no one else

with this guju guy ill explain most of his claims against afghanistan hoping you could help out in putting together an argument against his
these are his points and this is why i need help breaking his points

i have explained to him mughals recruited pashtuns

but his argument is that mughals used rajputs to conquered afghanistan and asked whats the difference between pashtuns fighting in mughal military and indians who made up the british east india army taking credit for the military accomplishment of british east india

told him how pashtun culture has stayed pure and he makes the claim in most countries that have bin conquered that their culture has remained and they continue to speak their mother language and so on like iran for example

he claims you can't look at the culture being destroyed as an argument that country has bin conquered or not cause when any country ruled another country before the 1900's it was done by installing puppet kings

for example country 1 invades country 2 but they know they can't rule over all the people cause human nature kicks in and people will revolt rather then have their entire country exploited so what country 1 would do is use divide and conquere and divide and rule policy's

so if country 2 was broken into two ethnic groups who were at war with eachother what country 1 would do

pick the minority ethnic group and work with them in conquering the majority ethnic group and making the king in the minority ethnic group to be country 1 puppet king the king woudl have the loyalty of his people cause they would be to focused on their hate for the other ethnic group to notice country 1 influence on their country

country 1 would tell the puppet king how to run the country for them example set up economic policy's that helped country 1 take the wealth of country 2 without people noticing but with flawed trade policys and policy's that exploited the other ethnic group and get the king to pay a cut of the taxes collected to country 1

the minority or favored ethnic group would also be treated extremely well by country 1 in exchange for their loyalty and their service in the military

the rival ethnic group who usually would make the majority would be brutally exploited and robbed but all the rebellions by the exploited would be crushed by country 1 and the ethnic group favored by country 1 and the military consisting of the ethnic group favored by country 1

this is what all empires did from alexander to france to british so on before 1900 cause what also helped was 94% of the world before year 1900 was illiterate and couldn't read or write and a monday morning news paper has more information in it today then most people in england were exposed to in their lifetime people in europe unless they were soldiers would probably travel 30 to 60 km away from their home and that would be the furthest they ever travelled few hundred years ago so it made it very easy to conquere and rule over a people and for puppet kings to rule without much issue heck most people wouldn't know if their country was being ruled by another and their king was just a puppet

so cause how countries were conquered besides africa and latin america his claim is when many countries were conquered their culture remained untouched and the invading country would only be interested in making money or if the country was extremely poor they would conquere it to use it as a pathway to invade other countries

his claim is cause pashtun culture has not bin changed means nothing when it comes to the question if pashtuns have ever bin counquered cause many times when a country was conquered it was to rob the country of its wealth or use it as a pathway or a bonqur against other countries

and he believes this is what the mongols turks alexander maurya nadar shah and mughals intentions were when they conquered pashtuns and they had no intention to change the culture of the pashtuns

so what i need is an argument that pashtuns were not conquered by maurya empire or by the arabs or by the turks or by nadar shah or the mughals
and cause pashtun culture has not bin changed won't cut it with this guy cause of the explanation i gave above


as well an argument to rip this guju a new one cause like a typical guju he believes money is what makes people supperior over others and uses that argument as well to try claiming guju's are superior to pashtuns by comparing the wealth the two communities have

[Al Hanif]

why do you care so much about what this gujarati thinks ?

there is only one winner in internet fights : the last one to shut down the laptop

[pashtun2121]

alot of smack that is said about pashtuns are usually spread by pakis and indians so its best to give them some facts cause its sad the impression alot of ppl get of afghans thanks to pakis indians americans british

few years ago at school some of the koreans looked at afghanistan as no different then an extremely poor african country they looked down on afghans no different then a high caste hindu looks down on a untouchable low caste dalit hindu

on an mma chat room sherdog you had people laughing at afghans cause of the american media telling people that grown pashtun men molest little boys

[pashtun2121]

if you saw people talk about your people like this wouldn't your blood boil

and you have pakis going around claiming that they defeated the americans and claim they own afghans thanks to the bbc documantry secret pakistan which claims
taliban are isi puppets who are trained and armed by pakistan to rule afghanistan
for the isi