When entire Mughal force perished in the Khyber pass (1672)

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

the problem with Pashtun nationalism is that it is all based on fairy tales. Today one of their false idols is Khattak, a degenerate who served in Mughal army. The other is Najib, a communist who served the Russians and took part in genocide against Pashtuns.

Don't forget about Abdali who served Safavid Turkoman Nadir Shah Qoli, against OTHER Pashtuns.

Only Mirwais Khan Hotak was a legitimate Pashtun ruler; but his son and nephew were a disgrace.

[Samandri]

Ok. Lets agree that It was only Akbar who was considered deviant religiously.



Khushal might have have liked or disliked certain individual Mughal rulers for a variety of reasons but there is no doubt he hated the mughals not just because of personal reasons but because he saw them up close and he knew that the Mughals are not friends of Pashtuns. He realised after his previous mistakes that Mughals are only using Pashtuns for their own benifit so he wanted Pashtuns to resist and overthrow the mughals and free themselves from their chains and return to their former glory of being rulers rather than being subserviant To Mughals.
After the he was freed. the Mughals tried their best to get him to rejoin them but by that time Khushal was a changed man and says

چې پښتون شوم په دا هسې سپينه ږيــــــره********** نور مې خدای مه کړه مغل ، وايم په ځيره
دا پوهېــــــــږم چې مغـــــــل لره کـــه ورشــــم********** تر اولـــــــه به زه لا په چـــــار بهـــــتر شـــــــــم
په ورتله به بيا خــــــدمت راڅخــــه غواړي********** پښتانه چې ســــره وژنو ، دېو پرې وياړي

The mughals were begging him to return to them but he refused not because his ego was hurt but for the greater good of the Pashtun cause. As you can see from above poem he rejected wealth, personal glory and undrestood the Mughals were only interested in subjugating Pashtuns.

پښتانه چې نور څه فکـر کا ناپوه دي********** بې د تورې خلاصۍ نشته په بل کار
بله هېڅ ليــــدله نه شي په دامنــځ کې********** يا مغل دمنځــه ورک يا پښتون خوار

So Khushal in the last sentence says Pashtuns will remain destitute as long as the Mughals are there.

I am sure Yusufzais were no Angels either, killing is part of war and not to forget Yusufzais killed his father but least he realised some of his mistakes and worked for the greater good of Pashtuns. Aimal Khan and Darya khan are highly praised in Khushals poetry and he is grateful to them for their assistance and struggle against the Mughals.

You are reading tidbits of his poetry without full context..... Refers to "Tarikh-i-Murassa" (page-288), in 1675 Mughal Prince Mauzam met Khushal Khan Khattak, offering him the rank of 2000 horse , that he wants to make peace with Pashtuns. Khushal refused to serve Aurangzeb but promised that when the prince would become Emperor , he would serve him even in his old age.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

You are not making any sense with this traitor stuff. It has already been explained to you that this Din-i-Ilahi was limited to Akbar and his son Jehangir reverted from it due to preaching of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi. In the religion context, such person is not called "traitor" but "murtad" or apostate. Also Akbar did not imprison Khushal, it was Aurangzeb, a very strict Hanafi.

It seems you dont know much about Khushal Khattak, you seem to be just a blind fan or some thing like that. Khushal Khattak has actually high praises for Shah Jahan and Jehangir.......He detested Aurangzeb for a very simple reason, the latter put him in Jail and did not take into consideration his decades long "loyal" services to Mughals, which included burning down villages of Yousafzais and killing every man and woman in sight for Mughal cause.

Khushal Khattak appear so impressive to us , because he recorded his feelings with poetic exaggerations and his grandson wrote his history. The real hero, and the greatest leader of the uprising was actually Aimal Khan........who unlike Khushal, fought till end and fought the hardest and main battles......and had no ego hurt issues, but revolted in response to an insult of a Pashtun woman. While we find Khushal in the Mughal camp even in 1672. Khushal was friend of Amin Khan, the villain in this story, and actually fought for Mughals in the van in this battle. Now Aimal Khan has not written his memoirs or done poetry, so he is rather unknown figure.........Mughals dont mention Khushal at all in this Afghan uprising but frequently mention the name of Aimal Khan in heir chronicles.......We love his poetry, but he was no Bahlol Lodi ,Sher Shah Suri, Mirwais Hotak or Ahmad Shah Abdali

Iblis_Efreetzai

Hi there HoP I guess you were trying to summon me, but didn't notice.

I know very little about Khushal Khan Khattak; although he's mentioned, he's not as emphasized on the Afghan side of the border.

I will say however, everyone in Afghanistan BLINDLY praises Ahmad Abdali (I am deliberately leaving Shah out this time for a reason)

Truth is, Abdali served the Safawid General Nadir Qoli against his own Pashtuns, the Hotaks, he couldn't handle the Hotaks ruling over Qandahar so he decided to serve a Perso-Turkoman and have him rule.

As for him being the Father of Modern Afghanistan; this is HOTLY debated if he even called his area of rulership Afghanistan.

There is a poem where here recites "Da Delhi Takht Herauma chi da ghro saroono de Pashtunkhwah yadum"

But if we analyze this verse, he had the throne of Delhi so it would have been apart of his Kingdom, therefore his reference to pashtunkhwah is clearly just a regional reference, not proclaiming the name of the area he ruled.

Almost all of our great heroes, asides from Mirwais Khan Hotak, and MAYBE Sher Shah ...were kind of wonky

I believe Mirwais Khan Hotak; is the true founder of the Pashtun independence movement, he didn't fight Pashtuns for foreign interests, he fought Pashtuns that were serving foreign interests.

But I am a Hotak myself so perhaps I am biased

[Samandri]

Hi there HoP I guess you were trying to summon me, but didn't notice.

I know very little about Khushal Khan Khattak; although he's mentioned, he's not as emphasized on the Afghan side of the border.

I will say however, everyone in Afghanistan BLINDLY praises Ahmad Abdali (I am deliberately leaving Shah out this time for a reason)

Truth is, Abdali served the Safawid General Nadir Qoli against his own Pashtuns, the Hotaks, he couldn't handle the Hotaks ruling over Qandahar so he decided to serve a Perso-Turkoman and have him rule.

As for him being the Father of Modern Afghanistan; this is HOTLY debated if he even called his area of rulership Afghanistan.

There is a poem where here recites "Da Delhi Takht Herauma chi da ghro saroono de Pashtunkhwah yadum"

But if we analyze this verse, he had the throne of Delhi so it would have been apart of his Kingdom, therefore his reference to pashtunkhwah is clearly just a regional reference, not proclaiming the name of the area he ruled.

Almost all of our great heroes, asides from Mirwais Khan Hotak, and MAYBE Sher Shah ...were kind of wonky

I believe Mirwais Khan Hotak; is the true founder of the Pashtun independence movement, he didn't fight Pashtuns for foreign interests, he fought Pashtuns that were serving foreign interests.

But I am a Hotak myself so perhaps I am biased

He was merely a 16 year old boy locked up in the jail of Kandahar, when Nadir Shah captured Kandahar from Shah Hussain Hotak in 1738. There were also many Ghilzais (from clans other than Hotaks) who served Nadir Shah Afshar. Tokhis joined Nadir Shah in his invasion of Hotak-held Kandahar. And the famous Azad Khan Afghan, one of the general of Nadir shah, was a Ghilzai from Sulieman Khel tribe. About Durranis, they were actually defeated by Nadir Shah in war, they joined him after defeat. Abdali did serve cruel person like Nadir Shah, but on other side he gained enough military experience to carve out a very large empire.........

He was a good leader and a good military general,....i have studied his dealings with tribes, he was a remarkable person

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

He was merely a 16 year old boy locked up in the jail of Kandahar, when Nadir Shah captured Kandahar from Shah Hussain Hotak in 1738. There were also many Ghilzais (from clans other than Hotaks) who served Nadir Shah Afshar. Tokhis joined Nadir Shah in his invasion of Hotak-held Kandahar. And the famous Azad Khan Afghan, one of the general of Nadir shah, was a Ghilzai from Sulieman Khel tribe. About Durranis, they were actually defeated by Nadir Shah in war, they joined him after defeat. Abdali did serve cruel person like Nadir Shah, but on other side he gained enough military experience to carve out a very large empire.........

He was a good leader and a good military general,....i have studied his dealings with tribes, he was a remarkable person

Sure he may have been a good leader but was he a Pashtun Nationalist? I don't think so

He preferred Qazilbash over Pashtuns in fact. Now you have a very admirable command of history. I did know that some of the Ghilzai chieftans sided with him; because Shah Hussain became a tyrant and was mentally ill.

But THEN he forced the Hotaks and Tokkhis into Ghazni and Zabul, he gave some lands to Qazilbash and their families. My family originated from Kandahar actually and were moved first to Zabul and then to Ghazni.

He should not be considered a Pashtun hero. We should not be calling him Baba

[Samandri]

Sure he may have been a good leader but was he a Pashtun Nationalist? I don't think so

He preferred Qazilbash over Pashtuns in fact. Now you have a very admirable command of history. I did know that some of the Ghilzai chieftans sided with him; because Shah Hussain became a tyrant and was mentally ill.

But THEN he forced the Hotaks and Tokkhis into Ghazni and Zabul, he gave some lands to Qazilbash and their families. My family originated from Kandahar actually and were moved first to Zabul and then to Ghazni.

He should not be considered a Pashtun hero. We should not be calling him Baba

The Ghilzai-Durrani rivalry was very deep-rooted. Honestly i cant pick a side. Mirwais Hotak himself was not free from tribal prejudice , he broke promise with Abdalis after getting power and expelled them from Kandahar after a war, the latter taking refuge in Herat.

About Shah Hussain Hotak, i think you are confusing him with Shah Mahmud Hotak. Not only Shah Hussain Hotak was a sane person but he was sufficiently a capable leader.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The Ghilzai-Durrani rivalry was very deep-rooted. Honestly i cant pick a side. Mirwais Hotak himself was not free from tribal prejudice , he broke promise with Abdalis after getting power and expelled them from Kandahar after a war, the latter taking refuge in Herat.

About Shah Hussain Hotak, i think you are confusing him with Shah Mahmud Hotak. Not only Shah Hussain Hotak was a sane person but he was sufficiently a capable leader.

The Abdalis were very Pro-Persia, perhaps that is why. Yes Mahmud Hotak went insane and went on a murder rampage, even murdering children. It's a shame.

Do you have any references regarding the details of Shah Hussain's rule in Qandahar? I could have sworn he was very disliked as was Ashraf.

[Samandri]

The Abdalis were very Pro-Persia, perhaps that is why. Yes Mahmud Hotak went insane and went on a murder rampage, even murdering children. It's a shame.

Do you have any references regarding the details of Shah Hussain's rule in Qandahar? I could have sworn he was very disliked as was Ashraf.

Refer to the Lockhart's books.

1- You are forgetting that Abdalis also have fought some battles with Safavids and were supporting Mirwais Hotak against Safavids but the latter betrayed them, broke the promise of sharing loot with them and he waged war against them....and removed Abdalis from their ancestral lands

2- In L.Lockhart's words, "men respected Mahmud because of his great courage , but he inspired fear rather than affection. Ashraf on the other hand , while looked upon as brave as his cousin, was greatly loved by his troops. ("The fall of Safavid dynasty, p-211)

3- About Shah Hussain Hotak, the ruler of Kandahar, i have not come across a single reference which says that he was insane or that he was disliked by his people. When Afghan tribes of Shal were harassed and looted by the Baloch marauders of Kalat, he led the force himself to take care of the business. Raverty on page 611 and 612 of his notes gives reference from the contemporary source that the Baloch took to the hills, leaving their families, cattle, and other property. The Afghans under Asadullah Khan Ishaqzaey Hotak took over every thing, and left the women and children unmolested. The Brahui Chief tendered allegiance. A treaty was concluded and out of the five clauses of this treaty one was that the Brahuis would return the cattle brought from Pishin and Shorawak.(A mad man wont behave like that)

[Shapur]

You are reading tidbits of his poetry without full context..... Refers to "Tarikh-i-Murassa" (page-288), in 1675 Mughal Prince Mauzam met Khushal Khan Khattak, offering him the rank of 2000 horse , that he wants to make peace with Pashtuns. Khushal refused to serve Aurangzeb but promised that when the prince would become Emperor , he would serve him even in his old age.

I don't have access to that book but let's assume what you wrote is correct.
It still contradicts what he says himself through his poetry. The fact of the matter is the Mughals begged him to come back but he refused. If it was a personal thing, he could have simply refused to serve them again and that would have been the end of story but no, in later stages of his life, he tried to bring all the Pashtuns tribes together to oppose and overthrow the Mughals. If he was beghairat, selfish and degenerate as some claim here, he would have accepted the Mughal offer and lived a life of luxury.
From the way you are portraying him, it seems like you are trying to say he had a big ego which was badly hurt when Aurganzeb jailed him and all his anti Mughal rhetoric was for personal revenge. I beg to differ and do not share that view. I see a man who learnt from his mistakes, put his ego aside for the greater good of his people and became a new person through his trial and tribulations. I would rather believe his own word rather than secondary sources.

[Samandri]

I would rather believe his own word rather than secondary sources.

Secondary source? Do you even know who wrote Tarikh-i-Murassa and what are its contents?

[Shapur]

Secondary source? Do you even know who wrote Tarikh-i-Murassa and what are its contents?

I did a quick google search and it says the book is authored by Khushal Khattak's son, Afzal Khan Khattak. I haven't read it so don't know its content other than the general outline of the book. So Tarikh e Murassa is not secondary source but still wouldn't it be more reliable to go to the direct words written by Khushal Khattak than what others have written about him?

[Samandri]

I did a quick google search and it says the book is authored by Khushal Khattak's son, Afzal Khan Khattak. I haven't read it so don't know its content other than the general outline of the book. So Tarikh e Murassa is not secondary source but still wouldn't it be more reliable to go to the direct words written by Khushal Khattak than what others have written about him?

What is the general outline of that book? do some more google searching and you will find answer there.

What you dont know is that Taikh-i-Murassa contains a portion of Biaz (diary) of Khushal Khan Khattak.....his grandson was not pulling facts and dialogues of Khushal out of his ass but he had diary of his grandfather in his possession which is lost except for the pages shared in Tarikh-i-Murassa. We are not talking about an XYX person, but Afzal Khan Khattak, the most favourite grandson of his favourite son who he appointed as chief of Khattak tribe in opposition to his son Bahram.

[Shapur]

What is the general outline of that book? do some more google searching and you will find answer there.

What you dont know is that Taikh-i-Murassa contains a portion of Biaz (diary) of Khushal Khan Khattak.....his grandson was not pulling facts and dialogues of Khushal out of his ass but he had diary of his grandfather in his possession which is lost except for the pages shared in Tarikh-i-Murassa. We are not talking about an XYX person, but Afzal Khan Khattak, the most favourite grandson of his favourite son who he appointed as chief of Khattak tribe in opposition to his son Bahram.

As I said before I haven't read the book so I do appreciate your input and clarifying some of the things. Maybe you can write an article in your blog discussing how different people view Khushal Khattak from all the sources hou have there. I do believe you are mostly fair in your work and don't have an agenda but we are all unique and see things differently. Even if.the same evidence is presented to two people, they might come to different conclusions. I simply do not buy that Khushal Khattak was the person as some say he was, maybe I am biased or a fan boy but it is the way it is. I mostly know him through his poetry and not his diaries or other writtings and history books. His imperfections make him more human and relateable unlike some holy figure who never made a mistake or never sinned.
I will keep reading about him as he is an extra ordinary personality.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Refer to the Lockhart's books.

1- You are forgetting that Abdalis also have fought some battles with Safavids and were supporting Mirwais Hotak against Safavids but the latter betrayed them, broke the promise of sharing loot with them and he waged war against them....and removed Abdalis from their ancestral lands

2- In L.Lockhart's words, "men respected Mahmud because of his great courage , but he inspired fear rather than affection. Ashraf on the other hand , while looked upon as brave as his cousin, was greatly loved by his troops. ("The fall of Safavid dynasty, p-211)

3- About Shah Hussain Hotak, the ruler of Kandahar, i have not come across a single reference which says that he was insane or that he was disliked by his people. When Afghan tribes of Shal were harassed and looted by the Baloch marauders of Kalat, he led the force himself to take care of the business. Raverty on page 611 and 612 of his notes gives reference from the contemporary source that the Baloch took to the hills, leaving their families, cattle, and other property. The Afghans under Asadullah Khan Ishaqzaey Hotak took over every thing, and left the women and children unmolested. The Brahui Chief tendered allegiance. A treaty was concluded and out of the five clauses of this treaty one was that the Brahuis would return the cattle brought from Pishin and Shorawak.(A mad man wont behave like that)

I will admit this is some very good information; one thing however, is that I have found that people consider ALL Panjpayi tribes to be Durranis, Which becomes very misleading. So sure we can find Achakzai's in allegiance with Hotaks, but Sadozai not so much, Sadozai were very Pro-Persia; I haven't found any evidence of the Sadozai participating in rebellion.

But I welcome you to correct me on this matter if you know more. I'm humbled by your level of knowledge.

[borjigin]

Timur Invades India - 1398 - YouTube