Pata Khazana:A haze of controversy surrounds the ancient jewel of Pashto Literature

[Firdousi]

Its actually the Tajiks who surprisingly had no influence over the region in later medieval period and we do not hear about their dynasties , warriors, poets , artists etc after Ghorid dynasty. The northern Afghanistan and Badakhshan , the abodes of Tajiks, were ruled by Timurids followed by Uzbeks while Kabul continued to be ruled by Mughals as late as 18th century. Tajiks are even absent in the Mughal chronicles which deals with their military expeditions in Balkh and Badakhshan. Convince me with the help of historical references that Tajiks did not vanish into thin air in the period between Ghorid dynasty and Hotakis........

Every single Turkic dynasty had to rely on Tajiks in order to rule their territories just like tribal Pashtuns had to rely on us in order to run the country (what does a tribe man know about government and urban dynamics? Tajiks served as poets, bureaucrats, artists, soldiers, mercenaries,.. under several dynasties. You seriously believe those Turkic tribes suddenly became Persianspeakers out of nothing? lmao

So your claims are baseless.

[Samandri]

Tajiks served as poets, bureaucrats, artists, soldiers, mercenaries,.. under several dynasties.

.

Give me the list of names of Tajik kings, poets , bureaucrats, artists, warriors etc in the period between 13th and 18th century........By Tajiks i mean Tajiks, not Iranians and people of Khorasan.

[Firdousi]

Give me the list of names of Tajik kings, poets , bureaucrats, artists, warriors etc in the period between 13th and 18th century........By Tajiks i mean Tajiks, not Iranians and people of Khorasan.

Tajiks were, are and always will be the original native people of Khorasan, buddy. Not people from modern Tajikistan. Tajik and Iranians were the same thing (obviously today they are not). Please, don't mutilate our heritage by dividing it along fake brit-russian made boundaries. Tajik and Khorasani are the same thing.

I am not historian nor I have any list, but you should know something about Jami, Amir Khoshrow, Behzad,.. who built the Taj Mahal? Ustad Isa and Ustad Ahmad Lahauri. You see once Mongols devasted our land even then they relied on Persian and Chinese wisemen in order to help them to organize and rule their empire after all they were tribal savages (thats a pattern shared by all tribal people). Do you know Monguls Capital Xanadu was built by a Persian architect called Ikhtyar al Din? Do you seriously believe there were no Tajiks/Persians serving the military and the government of Ghaznawids? Do you know the Seljuks reached their most glorious time under Nizam al Mulk (=ORDER OF THE REALM!!)

Rumi, Khayyam, Al Biruni, Al Ghazali, Fakhr Razi,.. etc all these guys were either born in Khorasan under Persianized Turkic dynasties. You seriously need to educate yourself when it comes to our history because you are clearly ignorant about it (no offense intended).

[Shapur]

Lodhis and Suris were both Indian dynasties, not Khorasanis.

What kind of logic is that? Lodhis and Suris were both Pashtun tribe names hence the dynasties were named after these tribe names. What makes them Indian dynasties? Using your logic, the British empire was also Indian because the British ruled India. Many British aristocrats were born in India because they ruled India for 200 years, does it make those British elite Indian somehow?

Hotakis were Ghilzais. Ghilzais were Turks (Khiliy). If Pashtuns are allowed to claim as "pashtun" a Pashtunized Turkic dynasty as Pashtun we Tajiks should be allowed to claim as Tajik those Persianized Turkic dynasties such as Khwarezmian, Ghaznawids, Seljuks, Qajars, Safavids and so on.

lol, I am Ghilzai myself and we are not Turkic, neither in looks nor customs. We are pure Pashtuns. The Ghilzai being Turkic confusion is caused by mixing it up with Khiljis of Delhi sultanate because sometimes Ghizais are reffered to as Ghiljis. Ashraf Ghani, Najibullah, Hafzullah Amin etc are all Ghilzais, do they look like Uzbeks to you? Hotaks are as Pashtun as you can get and they originally hail from Kandahar region. There might be some Turkic influence on Ghilzais of Ghazni because of Ghaznavid empire and the fact a large number of Ghilzais were enlisted in Mahmud Ghaznavi's army.

So NO, Tajiks don't have any claim over these empires even if the people these empires ruled happen to be Farsi speakers. That's like Indians claiming the British empire because many Indians served the British empire and its the people they ruled spoke Hindi. All empires need the services of the locals to run an effective empire. It doesn't change the fact who the rulers are.

Bukhara Khanate´s court language was Farsi. Those who committed a cultural genocide against Persian culture and language in Central Asia and India were the Brits and the Russians, not Turks. Turks always admired them.

Khanate of Bukhara - Wikipedia

It doesn't matter what the court language was. Farsi was used because Farsi was the lingua franca of the region just like Arabic was the lingua Franca before the revival of Farsi by Samanids, Saffarids. The Fact is that the rulers were Turks and sometimes they did take wives from Tajiks and Pashtuns but it doesn't make them Tajiks or Pashtuns because its the paternal line that matters. Look at what has happened since then, Farsi is banned in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan by the government, Tajiks of Samarkand, Bukhara and Marv are not allowed to call themsleves Tajik. These places are completely Turkic now with small pockets of people who might still call themselves Tajik. The Turks have turkified all the major centres of Khorasan except for Mashhad and Balkh.

[marwat]

Lodhis and Suris were both Indian dynasties, not Khorasanis.

Hotakis were Ghilzais. Ghilzais were Turks (Khiliy). If Pashtuns are allowed to claim as "pashtun" a Pashtunized Turkic dynasty as Pashtun we Tajiks should be allowed to claim as Tajik those Persianized Turkic dynasties such as Khwarezmian, Ghaznawids, Seljuks, Qajars, Safavids and so on.

Bukhara Khanate´s court language was Farsi. Those who committed a cultural genocide against Persian culture and language in Central Asia and India were the Brits and the Russians, not Turks. Turks always admired them.

Khanate of Bukhara - Wikipedia

my friend ghilzais makes the most of pashtun, it is the largest Pashtun tribal confederacy, you are trying to ride high taking benefit of the obscure origin of pashtun. either you had to accept that ghilzai were pashtun, since at that time pashtun identity were already established, no need to refer to them as turks when you try to make a point, ghilzais were not some sort of royalty among pashtun neither pashtun were subordinate to them. they are among us and we are among them,or you had to refer all pashtun as turkic tribal. it does not make sense to refer to pashtun royalty as turk or persian while identify the common pashtun as pashutn.

every people or tribe today are descendants of ancient tribes, most scholar are of the opinion that pashtun are descendants of earlier Scythian and white huns, but now we have an established separate identity

[Firdousi]

What kind of logic is that? Lodhis and Suris were both Pashtun tribe names hence the dynasties were named after these tribe names. What makes them Indian dynasties? Using your logic, the British empire was also Indian because the British ruled India. Many British aristocrats were born in India because they ruled India for 200 years, does it make those British elite Indian somehow?




lol, I am Ghilzai myself and we are not Turkic, neither in looks nor customs. We are pure Pashtuns. The Ghilzai being Turkic confusion is caused by mixing it up with Khiljis of Delhi sultanate because sometimes Ghizais are reffered to as Ghiljis. Ashraf Ghani, Najibullah, Hafzullah Amin etc are all Ghilzais, do they look like Uzbeks to you? Hotaks are as Pashtun as you can get and they originally hail from Kandahar region. There might be some Turkic influence on Ghilzais of Ghazni because of Ghaznavid empire and the fact a large number of Ghilzais were enlisted in Mahmud Ghaznavi's army.

So NO, Tajiks don't have any claim over these empires even if the people these empires ruled happen to be Farsi speakers. That's like Indians claiming the British empire because many Indians served the British empire and its the people they ruled spoke Hindi. All empires need the services of the locals to run an effective empire. It doesn't change the fact who the rulers are.




It doesn't matter what the court language was. Farsi was used because Farsi was the lingua franca of the region just like Arabic was the lingua Franca before the revival of Farsi by Samanids, Saffarids. The Fact is that the rulers were Turks and sometimes they did take wives from Tajiks and Pashtuns but it doesn't make them Tajiks or Pashtuns because its the paternal line that matters. Look at what has happened since then, Farsi is banned in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan by the government, Tajiks of Samarkand, Bukhara and Marv are not allowed to call themsleves Tajik. These places are completely Turkic now with small pockets of people who might still call themselves Tajik. The Turks have turkified all the major centres of Khorasan except for Mashhad and Balkh.

You should read my comments once again, Shapur Khan. I said Pashtun dynasties in Khorasan prior Hotaks. I did not say there were no Pashtun dynasties before it. Pretty obvious Lodhis and SUris were Pashtuns but they ruled in their Indian homeland, not in Khorasan the land now most of Pashtuns today claim to be original native people which is BS except few places along the modern PAK-AFG border. Even in those places many urban areas are inhabited by Tajiks (Gardez, Urgoon, Ghazni). So that means Tajik are indigenous to those places too (According encyclopedia iranica those places were originally Tajik).

I am not an expert on Pashtun history brother but as far as I am concerned most of historical facts indicate a Turkic origin for the Ghilzais. You claim Ghilzais were not Turks yet you don't provide any evidence.

The thing is those dynasties/empires were patrons of Persian/Tajik language, culture, architecture, customs, idiosyncrasy.. so we are proud of them. Brits did not encourage Indian values nor Indian culture. But those Persianized Turkic tribes encouraged, valued and spread my culture. Why I shouldn't be proud of it?

True, Tajik identity has been erased from Merv, and Ferghana and its being oppressed in Samarkand, Bukhara and Termez. But there is a rise of Persian nationalism in Uzbekistan. I have come across many Uzbek Tajiks in Emirates and I was amazed by their heavy nationalism. Most of them still call themselves Tajik brother but at an official level they can't register themselves as such (just like in Afghanistan we had to register as Afghan/Pashtun, but now finally we will be able to register our ethnicity on our National ID´s).

[Samandri]

Ghiljis are not Turks but hepthalites by roots. Hepthalites or White Huns were Iranic people who resembled Turks in their ways so they were mistaken as Turks . . Thats why Mahmud Kashghari (1074 A.D.), who wrote the famous dictionary of Turks, says " The ghuz of Turkmans comprise 24 tribes, but two Khaljiya tribes resemble the Turks are not considered Turks".

Mohammd son of Ahmad Khwarazmi (980 A.D.) says: Khalj and Taraks of Kabjiya are the descendants of Hayatila who held great prestige in Tukharistan"....Haythila was hephthalite and Tukharistan was abode of Hepthalites

Firdousi by your logic entire Iran is basically Tajikistan which is not true......... the correct definition of Tajik is ancient eastern Iranian tribes like Sogdians, Bactrians etc who have adopted Farsi language..........

[Firdousi]

my friend ghilzais makes the most of pashtun, it is the largest Pashtun tribal confederacy, you are trying to ride high taking benefit of the obscure origin of pashtun. either you had to accept that ghilzai were pashtun, since at that time pashtun identity were already established, no need to refer to them as turks when you try to make a point, ghilzais were not some sort of royalty among pashtun neither pashtun were subordinate to them. they are among us and we are among them,or you had to refer all pashtun as turkic tribal. it does not make sense to refer to pashtun royalty as turk or persian while identify the common pashtun as pashutn.

every people or tribe today are descendants of ancient tribes, most scholar are of the opinion that pashtun are descendants of earlier Scythian and white huns, but now we have an established separate identity

Pashtuns like Tajiks are a confederation of several Iranic and Turkic tribes, united by language, culture and faith. Hotaks might considered themselves Pashtuns by the time they invaded Khorasan and Iran but they were originally Turks.

Please, provide a reliable source about Pashtuns scythian and white hun origin.

[Samandri]

Please, provide a reliable source about Pashtuns scythian and white hun origin.

Let me repeat myself. Ghiljis are not Turks but hepthalites by roots. Hepthalites or White Huns were Iranic people who resembled Turks in their ways so they were mistaken as Turks . . Thats why Mahmud Kashghari (1074 A.D.), who wrote the famous dictionary of Turks, says " The ghuz of Turkmans comprise 24 tribes, but two Khaljiya tribes resemble the Turks are not considered Turks".

Mohammd son of Ahmad Khwarazmi (980 A.D.) says: Khalj and Taraks of Kabjiya are the descendants of Hayatila who held great prestige in Tukharistan"....Haythila was hephthalite and Tukharistan was abode of Hepthalites. A scroll dated to 492-93 CE mentions that they hephthalites had Iranian names. White Huns (Hephthalites) - Ancient History Encyclopedia. Also read this HEPHTHALITES – Encyclopaedia Iranica

Firdousi by your logic entire Iran is basically Tajikistan which is not true......... the correct definition of Tajik is ancient eastern Iranian tribes like Sogdians, Bactrians etc who have adopted Farsi language..........

[Samandri]

Pashtuns by the time they invaded Khorasan and Iran but they were originally Turks.

.

Firdousi , you are simply trolling thats why i asked you to provide me the list of notable Tajiks in which you failed. Here you are claiming that Hotaks were considered Turks when they invaded Iran in 1722 AD......provide any contemporary or near contemporary source which indicate that Ghilzai Afghans had Turkic identity in 18th century.

[Firdousi]

Let me repeat myself. Ghiljis are not Turks but hepthalites by roots. Hepthalites or White Huns were Iranic people who resembled Turks in their ways so they were mistaken as Turks . . Thats why Mahmud Kashghari (1074 A.D.), who wrote the famous dictionary of Turks, says " The ghuz of Turkmans comprise 24 tribes, but two Khaljiya tribes resemble the Turks are not considered Turks".

Mohammd son of Ahmad Khwarazmi (980 A.D.) says: Khalj and Taraks of Kabjiya are the descendants of Hayatila who held great prestige in Tukharistan"....Haythila was hephthalite and Tukharistan was abode of Hepthalites. A scroll dated to 492-93 CE mentions that they hephthalites had Iranian names. White Huns (Hephthalites) - Ancient History Encyclopedia. Also read this HEPHTHALITES – Encyclopaedia Iranica

Firdousi by your logic entire Iran is basically Tajikistan which is not true......... the correct definition of Tajik is ancient eastern Iranian tribes like Sogdians, Bactrians etc who have adopted Farsi language..........

Your sources prove nothing. Just because two historians said something it doesn't prove it. I need reliable proves, brother. One direct link between Hephtalites and Pashtuns. Your sources doesn't prove a Hephtalite origin nor disproves Khilijs Turkic origins. I need something more solid.

I have never denied that. Tajiks are a confederation of several Iranian tribes such as Soghdians, Bactrians, Parthians and Persians, with Turkic influences who saved and adopted Persian after the Arab invasion. Tajik modern identity was created 1200 years under several Tajik/Persian dynasties. But at the end of the day we are more Persians than anything else. As Samanids said once.. "here, in this region (Khorasan), the language is Persian, and the kings of this realm are Persian kings." So I consider myself part of the Persian civilization (BECAUSE WE ARE A CIVILIZATION).

[Firdousi]

Firdousi , you are simply trolling thats why i asked you to provide me the list of notable Tajiks in which you failed. Here you are claiming that Hotaks were considered Turks when they invaded Iran in 1722 AD......provide any contemporary or near contemporary source which indicate that Ghilzai Afghans had Turkic identity in 18th century.

I did not fail. I did provide a list of several important Khorasanis who lived under Turkic dynasties. Be happy with it.

Please, stop twisting my words. I did not say Hotakis were Turks by the time they invaded Khorasan. I said:

Hotaks might considered themselves Pashtuns by the time they invaded Khorasan and Iran but they were originally Turks.

Please, lets keep it civil and don't turn this into a childish game.

[Samandri]

Your sources prove nothing. Just because two historians said something it doesn't prove it. I need reliable proves, brother.

You are a very mischievous troll . keep on trolling brother

[Shapur]

You should read my comments once again, Shapur Khan. I said Pashtun dynasties in Khorasan prior Hotaks. I did not say there were no Pashtun dynasties before it. Pretty obvious Lodhis and SUris were Pashtuns but they ruled in their Indian homeland, not in Khorasan the land now most of Pashtuns today claim to be original native people which is BS except few places along the modern PAK-AFG border. Even in those places many urban areas are inhabited by Tajiks (Gardez, Urgoon, Ghazni). So that means Tajik are indigenous to those places too (According encyclopedia iranica those places were originally Tajik).

Its true they never ruled Khorasan before the Hotakis but you are stretching the definition of khorasan to include places Sistan, Kabulistan, Hazarajat, Badkhshan, Sughd, Kandahar, Ghazni etc which is incorrect. Khorasan proper doesn't include aforementioned areas and Pashtun never claim to be from Khorasan in the proper sense. Even Khushal Khan khattak says in one of his poems that if you want to find wise men then go to Khorasan which implies that Khorasan and Afghanistan/Pukhtunkhwa were not the same and there was a clear distinction.

This is from the wikipedia article Great Khorasan you posted

According to Ghulam Mohammad Ghobar, Afghanistan's current Persian-speaking territories formed the major portion of Khorasan,[9] as two of the four main capitals of Khorasan (Herat and Balkh) are now located in Afghanistan. Ghobar uses the terms "Proper Khorasan" and "Improper Khorasan" in his book to distinguish between the usage of Khorasan in its strict sense and its usage in a loose sense.[9] According to him, Proper Khorasan contained regions lying between Balkh in the east, Merv in the north, Sistan in the south, Nishapur in the west and Herat, known as the Pearl of Khorasan, in the center. Improper Khorasan's boundaries extended to as far as Hazarajat and Kabul in the east, Sistan and Baluchistan in the south, Transoxiana and Khwarezm in the north, and Damghan and Gorgan in the west. It is mentioned in the Memoirs of Babur that:

"The people of Hindustān call every country beyond their own Khorasān, in the same manner as the Arabs term all except Arabia, Ajem. On the road between Hindustān and Khorasān, there are two great marts: the one Kābul, the other Kandahār. Caravans, from Ferghāna, Tūrkestān, Samarkand, Balkh, Bokhāra, Hissār, and Badakhshān, all resort to Kābul; while those from Khorasān repair to Kandahār. This country lies between Hindustān and Khorasān."[3]

You see that Khorasan doesn't inlcude areas like, Gardez, Ghazni, Kandahar, Helmand, Nimroz, Kabul, Hazarajat, Bdakhshan, Pamirs, Sughd etc. Its only an attempt by some modern revisionist who want to re write history and claim whole of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan so they can claim to be its original inhabitants. The truth is anything south of Hindukush and Herat/Farah was not Khorasan. I know there are farsi speakers in Gardez, Jalalabad, kandahar, helmand, and all urban centres but overwhemling majority are Pashtuns and these Tajiks will get pashtunised just like Pashtuns in Herat and Balkh will become persianized. Its just natural.

I am not an expert on Pashtun history brother but as far as I am concerned most of historical facts indicate a Turkic origin for the Ghilzais. You claim Ghilzais were not Turks yet you don't provide any evidence.

The thing is those dynasties/empires were patrons of Persian/Tajik language, culture, architecture, customs, idiosyncrasy.. so we are proud of them. Brits did not encourage Indian values nor Indian culture. But those Persianized Turkic tribes encouraged, valued and spread my culture. Why I shouldn't be proud of it?

You made a claim that Ghilzais are Turkic thus the onus is on you to prove your assertion backed up by credible evidence. I don't have to prove anything as I didn't make the claim but this claim of Ghilzais being Turk has been debunked many times and you can use the Search button and find the threads which deal with this issue. It has already been discussed on this forum many times.

Of course you can be proud of those dynasties. Punjabis are also proud of Ghaznavids, Abdalis etc because they were muslim and have named missiles after them. there is nothing wrong with it but even if they liked Farsi language, culture etc, it still doesn't make them Tajik dynasties because clearly they were not Tajiks. I don't dispute that Tajiks are the original inhabitants of Khorasan and the people you mentioned like Rumi, Al Biruni, Khawarazimi etc were Tajiks but they were scholars, poets, etc not rulers.

[Firdousi]

Its true they never ruled Khorasan before the Hotakis but you are stretching the definition of khorasan to include places Sistan, Kabulistan, Hazarajat, Badkhshan, Sughd, Kandahar, Ghazni etc which is incorrect. Khorasan proper doesn't include aforementioned areas and Pashtun never claim to be from Khorasan in the proper sense. Even Khushal Khan khattak says in one of his poems that if you want to find wise men then go to Khorasan which implies that Khorasan and Afghanistan/Pukhtunkhwa were not the same and there was a clear distinction.

This is from the wikipedia article Great Khorasan you posted



You see that Khorasan doesn't inlcude areas like, Gardez, Ghazni, Kandahar, Helmand, Nimroz, Kabul, Hazarajat, Bdakhshan, Pamirs, Sughd etc. Its only an attempt by some modern revisionist who want to re write history and claim whole of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan so they can claim to be its original inhabitants. The truth is anything south of Hindukush and Herat/Farah was not Khorasan. I know there are farsi speakers in Gardez, Jalalabad, kandahar, helmand, and all urban centres but overwhemling majority are Pashtuns and these Tajiks will get pashtunised just like Pashtuns in Herat and Balkh will become persianized. Its just natural.




You made a claim that Ghilzais are Turkic thus the onus is on you to prove your assertion backed up by credible evidence. I don't have to prove anything as I didn't make the claim but this claim of Ghilzais being Turk has been debunked many times and you can use the Search button and find the threads which deal with this issue. It has already been discussed on this forum many times.

Of course you can be proud of those dynasties. Punjabis are also proud of Ghaznavids, Abdalis etc because they were muslim and have named missiles after them. there is nothing wrong with it but even if they liked Farsi language, culture etc, it still doesn't make them Tajik dynasties because clearly they were not Tajiks. I don't dispute that Tajiks are the original inhabitants of Khorasan and the people you mentioned like Rumi, Al Biruni, Khawarazimi etc were Tajiks but they were scholars, poets, etc not rulers.

Neyshabur, Mashad, Herat, Balkh, Merv, Panjkent, Samarkand, Bukhara, Nisa, Termez, were Khorasan. You are right, Kabulistan and Ghazni were not included in Khorasan but i must point out Ferdowsi did consider them part of Khorasan (Rostams mother was the Princess of Kabulistan and he was born in Sistan/Zaranj/Zabol according Shahnameh). Honestly, since those places are mainly inhabited by Tajiks and their history was and is related to the rest of the proper Khorasan it isn't that crazy to consider them Khorasanis too.

Ghilzais descend from Khalaj people.

Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, H. A. Rose, p. 241

At the Court of Amîr: A Narrative, by John Alfred Gray, p. 203.


Shapur there is something called the Turco-Persian tradition, something most of Pashtuns fail to understand. Many years ago I read something like this: "The pride of Iran its his culture". We take pride of our culture. You might have noticed Tajiks in Afghanistan don't use to care so much about their ethnicity but we are proud of our culture with a frenzied passion. No other people in our region probably in the world is so proud of its culture, heritage and language as much as we are. Basically because we acknowledge that those who served, praised, encouraged and spread our culture where actually serving our nation. Let me share with you this, and you will understand.

"The work of Iranians can be seen in every field of cultural endeavor, including Arabic poetry, to which poets of Iranian origin composing their poems in Arabic made a very significant contribution. In a sense, Iranian Islam is a second advent of Islam itself, a new Islam sometimes referred to as Islam-i Ajam. It was this Persian Islam, rather than the original Arab Islam, that was brought to new areas and new peoples: to the Turks, first in Central Asia and then in the Middle East in the country which came to be called Turkey, and of course to India. The Ottoman Turks brought a form of Iranian civilization to the walls of Vienna. [...] By the time of the great Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century, Iranian Islam had become not only an important component; it had become a dominant element in Islam itself, and for several centuries the main centers of Islamic have the power and civilization were in countries that were, if not Iranian, at least marked by Iranian civilization. [...] The center of the Islamic world was under Turkish and Persian states, both shaped by Iranian culture. [...] The major centers of Islam in the late medieval and early modern periods, the centers of both political and cultural power, such as India, Central Asia, Iran, Turkey, were all part of this Iranian civilization. Although much of it spoke various forms of Turkish, as well as other local languages, their classical and cultural language was Persian. Arabic was of course the language of scripture and law, but Persian was the language of poetry and literature".

-- Bernard Lewis