Gandharis were Pactyans?

[Samandri]

I won . Pashtuns invaded and settled in 12th or 14th or 15th (the year I don't care).The core area of the debate is whether afghans are ancient Gandharis(indic) or Iranian settlers of recent times (12th or 13th century) I won .
You don't take al Bruni's(Iranian) points ,the world's first Indologist,what a stupid you are.Just read about al Bruni he lived most part of his life in present day Afghanistan.He has wrote exactly where these afghans were in his times(11th century).
Gandharis were hindkowan/Punjabis/indic

You won what ? a Shiva's penis?

[Saleh]

Just replace the word American with Gandharis.

This is real AFGHANISTAN.
These words must be said by every afghan.

if you want to go that route of invaders displacing natives, then it can be argued the whole Indian culture was formed by invaders from North west.

the caste system was placed to ensure racial purity of the invading Indo-Europeans, wasn't it? These invaders were also the reason of the spread the ''Indo-Aryan'' languages in South Asia.

so which one is it Apu?

[Samandri]

Hahaha sore loser

Troll, you used my this post of previous year and trolled others with it

[Samandri]

Hahaha sore loser

You are very good at trolling, i admit that

[Samandri]

Thanks.

Enjoy trolling on PF......

[Samandri]

Ok guys dont waste further time on this Indian, he is just trolling

[Elite Pakhtun]

I won . Pashtuns invaded and settled in 12th or 14th or 15th (the year I don't care).The core area of the debate is whether afghans are ancient Gandharis(indic) or Iranian settlers of recent times (12th or 13th century) I won .
You don't take al Bruni's(Iranian) points ,the world's first Indologist,what a stupid you are.Just read about al Bruni he lived most part of his life in present day Afghanistan.He has wrote exactly where these afghans were in his times(11th century).
Gandharis were hindkowan/Punjabis/indic

lol... First excerpt you pasted was opinions of different people. It didn't include Olaf Caroe, Heinrich Zimmer, and a whole host of others, who argued in favor of Pactyans being Gandharans and being original Pakhtuns. The guys I've mentioned have done much more in depth analysis of this, and are renowned for this. Raverty's opinion is interesting, and I do wonder what others think about it. If it's to be taken seriously, then Pashtuns weren't even in existence before the 15th century (per him). Samandri has already pointed out flaws in that one (inconsistent dates).

Second excerpt that Samandri pasted proved nothing in your favor. It spoke briefly about some skirmishes, and erecting of a fort, naming the place Khyber, and "subduing" the province of Roh (which it describes the boundaries of), along with alliances with some people etc. So you're aware, subduing does not mean displacing or laying to waste or razing or anything of that sort. Islam did spread from the West to East, so it may explain the conversion, but it's a massive stretch to say it explains anything else.

You would think some sort of genocide would take up at least 1 sentence.

For example, we have documented evidence of Mughals razing cities. We have documented evidence of struggles and violence when Hepthalites took over, Indo-Greek people, but not this? Seems far fetched. At best it means the people accept their terms and even go as far as joining them, most likely by converting (i.e. what is currently accepted almost everywhere).

I can give you some minimal credit though. The sources you're providing seem to indicate that Pashtuns came form Koh Sulaiman and settled in various areas. The dates are all over the place, and the evidence is shoddy (and ignores others that I mentioned above).

It's pretty clear Mahmud of Ghazni did not kill the locals off and replace them with new people (present day Pakhtuns). So how exactly have you "won" then?

[Elite Pakhtun]

Please read this book bro Afghan Frontier: At the Crossroads of Conflict - Victoria Schofield - Google Books it clearly says how Mahmud ghazni committed hindu genocide in Gandhara
and Kabul valley by killing and expelling hindus from frontier into inner lands.Just one glimpse of book( pg no:24)
Now AFGHANISTAN region's greatest historian and Indologist comments on genocide of hindus during Mahmud ghaznis conquest (AL BURUNI) al Bruni accompanied Mahmud ghazni during his conquest.Alberuni, a historian who accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni, described the conquests in North Western India .Every historian is saying it was a genocide.

How are you not embarrassed? Page 24 of the book you referenced is talking about the White Huns aka the Hepthalites. Even that wasn't a genocide. That should also be enough to tell you that if something further back in the past, like the Hepthalites, has documented the bloodshed, then a genocide that happened a fair bit later should be documented as well. Especially totally replacing the population. Keep reading it, and it talks about multiple campaigns, and a successor by the name of Mahmud of Ghazni who finally does the trick. It was a concerted effort, over a period of time.

The pages you pasted talk about destruction of sites, and heritage... i.e. burning things down. This is a thing SOME Muslim conquerors did, and even the Taliban did with the Bamiyan Buddhas, i.e. they'd destroy prior places of worship/anything to do with another religion upon capturing it. This has a reason, it's to prevent idol worship and polytheism. I won't get into it. But to the point: Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed and pillaged a few things... Shouldn't there be a reference to the genocide part you keep talking about? It appears the bulk of the literature talks about him moving on East to the Punjab, and spending a lot of time in what is known as India today. He did a lot of campaigns in India.

I'm not saying this because I have any sort of vested interest, I'd actually like to know what the truth is, and will happily admit if I'm proven wrong. I feel some of the people claiming origins from present day Afghanistan are doing so because they have some ulterior motive.

Another bit for you to have a look at:



Anyhow... I've been running in circles a little bit, so unless you can prove your argument as valid, I'm done entertaining your posts.

[miniskit]

Are we really discussing this stupid theory? Afghans are east iranics, go look how these people have been described historically to know if they can be responsible for any civilisation. Forget about a second Gandhara is indic as it gets. Afghans are like mongols and turks, good at adopting other people culture but poor at coming up with their own or influencing others. Afghans life style was also same as mongols and turk, nomads. Correct me if I am wrong but 60% of Afghans still live like in ancient times, nomadic people with goats.

Only two civilisations exist in this region, Indian and persian.

[Samandri]

Are we really discussing this stupid theory? Afghans are east iranics, go look how these people have been described historically to know if they can be responsible for any civilisation. Forget about a second Gandhara is indic as it gets. Afghans are like mongols and turks, good at adopting other people culture but poor at coming up with their own or influencing others. Afghans life style was also same as mongols and turk, nomads. Correct me if I am wrong but 60% of Afghans still live like in ancient times, nomadic people with goats.

Only two civilisations exist in this region, Indian and persian.

By Indian civilization you mean this ?

[miniskit]

By Indian civilization you mean this ?

IMG]

Low caste people are not part of hindu dharma and neither responsible for Indian civilisation which is product of Rajput Kshatriya and brahmins. Its like saying afghans/east iranics are representative of Persian civilisation.

[Manzareh]

Is there any correlation between Pactyan people and Hephthalites? (also knows as white huns, which are said to have originated in modern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa)

[Manzareh]

Low caste people are not part of hindu dharma and neither responsible for Indian civilisation which is product of Rajput Kshatriya and brahmins. Its like saying afghans/east iranics are representative of Persian civilisation.

If you have anything to do with 'caste' then you cannot be classed as civilised as it is the most backward thing ever invented.

[Guest101]

Indian civilizations were built by white looking race people. Hitler was kinda partially right.

Whats up with these gandu Indians swarming these forums claiming other countries territories? lmao.

[Guest101]

If you have anything to do with 'caste' then you cannot be classed as civilised as it is the most backward thing ever invented.

The people who came to india and brought with them Indo European languages were probably light skinned race people. Since indian subcontinent was populated by a black race, it made sense that created the caste system to keep races from mixing. But ultimately they failed because even the high caste indians look like the rest of indians duo to the larger amount of black population.