Afghans defeated Indians

[Fahd]

Yeah Some Afghan leaders ruled over a vast area of Present day India for some time. But what significant they did for India. Monetary system was already in use in India like people used to say Taka in bengal at that time. Suri introduced a new name Rupee nothing else. However I admire only one Afghan Invader Sher Shah Suri because he did something for his own gain but helped Indian in that course. Ex:- He renovated and expanded G. T. Road which was initiated by Chandra Gupta Mourya. He renovated that road to connect afghan land to his capital so in adverse situation afghan army can reach there easily. According to your logic, Britishers did a lot for India. Any body who was invader, invaded India for his personal gain not to do a lot for India. I am not against you people but you people are acting strange here. You are trying to say that You invaded other's land and ruled over them against their wishes (same like Britishers did both you and us) and did a lot for upliftment of Indians.

i think we have the bravest history
and please britishers never ruled us just u
they just get f in afghanistan all the time like russia, USA now ,alexander the great ,maghol........................................

[SinghIsKing]

I don't think the Afghans had any negative approach to Indians.

I don't have personally any negative thinking about Afghanistan. Actually I want Afghanistan to be developed because It will safeguard my country's long term interest and lead to a full Asian Integration like European Union in which we will be able to travel anywhere we want.

[SinghIsKing]

I dont know what you are proud of?

You are still an oppressed sikh in India , no different than Pashtuns in

Pakistan. Being oppressed by hindus , prolly its a victory for you and

you are proud of it.

Good luck with that.

Don't stoop to this level. I can say many things but It is Pashtoon Forum so enjoy . Just for the fun, Do you know about Durand Line. Have you heard about MahaRaja Ranjeet Singh. A Sikh is Prime minister of India now. Sikhs had gone to highest post in Army,Navy, Air-force,Judiciary, name anything you want. A sikh (Giyani Jail Singh) had been president also. So You can think about "Hindus Supressing Sikhs crap". I am not going to wake you up from denial. BTW Do you read about sargarhi or not?

[SinghIsKing]

i think we have the bravest history
and please britishers never ruled us just u
they just get f in afghanistan all the time like russia, USA now ,alexander the great ,maghol........................................

Is it Pashtoon forum or Afghanistan forum. I first then yes britishers ruled majority of your population and if second then You are correct they never ruled you.

[Fahd]

^come on this theard about afghans thats mean talking about afghanistan
:P
am i smart or ppl don't read what's the theard about !!!!

[SinghIsKing]

^come on this theard about afghans thats mean talking about afghanistan
:P
am i smart or ppl don't read what's the theard about !!!!

This thread is about Pashtun, not only about Pashtun of Afghanistan. Anyway Believe what You believe. Ignorance is bliss.

[Fahd]

This thread is about Pashtun, not only about Pashtun of Afghanistan. Anyway Believe what You believe. Ignorance is bliss.

even if we talk about all pashtun
from where u got this info about british ruled us
u can't belive that no one can ruled us but islam does by love not by fight
u should know we are diffrent from all tribes in the world
no one in this f earth can rule us
just we can rule us :P
LOL

[Maulik]

Congratz afghans. . .nothng to add more.lol

[Wardak2010]

Old history. Seems all Afghans have is just be proud of their past. Look at Afghans now. Afghans need to get past the wars and conflict and join the world.

[KhalsaWarrior]

What are you talking about ?

Saragarhi , sikh mercenaries fighting for brits?

I bet its exaggerated like other birt battles.

You should have a clue of what happened in 84 , still majority of sikhs are

angry. Its like same situation with pashtuns in pakistan , some like pakistan

some dont.

Besides People here never submitted to brits, they were always engaged

in wars, you should check a lil about ajab khan afridi.

Shadow caster, you cant be an expert on Sikh affairs more than a Sikh himself. So when I as a Sikh say that the Sikhs in India are happy with their position in the Indian Union, my word is better than yours. True there are renegades, people with different opinions and aims, especially those living in the West. I know because I have spent a lot of time there as well. But the voice of the Sikhs are the Sikhs living in Punjab, India. No Canada born and bred Sikh can tell me that I am being wronged against. Sikhs in India, 99.9% of them are loyal towards India.

Regarding the original topic of the thread. The Third battle of Panipat is one of the turning points in India history, The battle itself, its causes and its effects have been studied extensively. One often overlooked fact is the impact that the battle had on the British prospects in India. The Marathas floundered, the Afghans left (unsurprisingly, as very few of them planned to entrench themselves in Delhi) and this left a vaccum in the North. A vaccum that was partially filled by the Sikhs, who organized themselves into Misls and began raiding Abdali's caravans and the British, who increased their machinations (starting from the east) to gain control of the sub-continent.

[Fahd]

Congratz afghans. . .nothng to add more.lol

i can say it's shame to have u here
u lough like d u should respect that u r in PF
dame which world we live in
sharam na shta hayea na shta ????????
khdai de ghark ka hindai yeh de pakhtun ba katkeh sa kaweh ????????
teche ta bzrakeh de deh ???
can any one translate it to english :P

[SinghIsKing]

Khalsawarrior how true is the Khalsastan movement? I heard Sikhs are treated poorly is this true?

Khalistan movement has died in India but it is still surviving in the hearts of some Sikhs of Canada and Australia.
In literacy Rate, Sikh > Hindu
In Economical Condition(On Average), Sikh > Hindu
In Indian Army,
In Numbers, Hindu > Sikh
In proportion, Sikh > Hindu ( Sikh 1.9% of India's Population but 12% of Indian Army)

Sikhs has been President, Prime minister, Chief Justice, Army Chief, Naval Chief, Air force Chief, Chief election commissioner etc , of India.
Yes 1984 Sikh massacre is a black spot in Modern Indian History. Indira gandhi did right thing in a wrong manner. Like Partial destruction of Golden temple, which was very sad of Sikhs and many Hindus also. After murder of Indira Gandhi congress orchestrated Massacre of sikhs in delhi. Nearly 5000 sikhs were killed in the riots. But now time has changed. At that time many hindus also helped Sikhs. There were slogans like,
"Khalistan kyon chahiye, Pura Hindustan tumhara hain"
(Why you need Khalistan, All India is Yours).
Now Almost all sikhs all very patriotic Indians. But I as a non-sikh want punishment for all culprits of sikh massacre.

[KhalsaWarrior]

Khalsawarrior how true is the Khalsastan movement? I heard Sikhs are treated poorly is this true?

Aseer, for all practical purposes, the Khalistan movement is non-existent in India. They just dont have the ground support the way they had in the 80's. Sikhs then were seething from injustices, perceived or real and wanted revenge. But it died out soon. A bit from the state's high-handed extra-judicial approach and the wishes of a people tired of violence.

It would be nothing further from the truth than to say that Sikhs are treated poorly in India. They are the most well-off amongst all religious groups in India. And to accomplish that in a country where you're a minority; it speaks volumes about both the industrious nature of the Sikhs and the pluralistic and secular nature of the Indian society. Sikhs are over-represented in the Armed forces, in sports teams, in politics and in industry. Kind of like the Pashtuns in Afghanistan. Show me another minority community like that in any country.

Now for the negatives - Its true, that Sikhs are caricaturized to an extent in the society. In Bollywood, TV shows, a Sikh is stereotyped as either a buffoon or a patriotic soldier (remember Border?). That is a disturbing trend but isnt something that threatens the Sikh Quam's existence in India.

There are other unaddressed issues like the continued injustice of the 84 anti-Sikh riots and the issue of denying Sikhs a separate marriage act in the Indian constitution and continuing to club them under the Hindu marriage act. These issues do need to be addressed.

I hope I have cleared some of your doubts in my post.

KW

[SinghIsKing]

Aseer, for all practical purposes, the Khalistan movement is non-existent in India. They just dont have the ground support the way they had in the 80's. Sikhs then were seething from injustices, perceived or real and wanted revenge. But it died out soon. A bit from the state's high-handed extra-judicial approach and the wishes of a people tired of violence.

It would be nothing further from the truth than to say that Sikhs are treated poorly in India. They are the most well-off amongst all religious groups in India. And to accomplish that in a country where you're a minority; it speaks volumes about both the industrious nature of the Sikhs and the pluralistic and secular nature of the Indian society. Sikhs are over-represented in the Armed forces, in sports teams, in politics and in industry. Kind of like the Pashtuns in Afghanistan. Show me another minority community like that in any country.

Now for the negatives - Its true, that Sikhs are caricaturized to an extent in the society. In Bollywood, TV shows, a Sikh is stereotyped as either a buffoon or a patriotic soldier (remember Border?). That is a disturbing trend but isnt something that threatens the Sikh Quam's existence in India.

There are other unaddressed issues like the continued injustice of the 84 anti-Sikh riots and the issue of denying Sikhs a separate marriage act in the Indian constitution and continuing to club them under the Hindu marriage act. These issues do need to be addressed.

I hope I have cleared some of your doubts in my post.

KW

I agree with your post. Criminals 0f 1984,1992 should be punished but these things are in court's domain. I am not able to understand problem in giving Sikhs a separate marriage act. Can you elaborate the reason behind this?

[KhalsaWarrior]

Khalsa your post also cleared my misconceptions. Is it true Pakistanis officials support insurgency groups in India?

They certainly do. How can I be so sure? Well the worst insurgencies in India have been in Punjab and Kashmir. Places that share a border with Pakistan. There have been anecdotal accounts of people who have crossed into Pakistan for training and then come back to attack chosen targets. Check Google for any pro-Khalistan or Azad Kashmir websites and you will find numerous accounts like that. Plus there are other evidences like arms and the ammo used by these groups. All that can be traced. Pakistan has a huge small-scale arms making industry and its isn't tough to procure or provide Kalashnikov. Compare that with other insurgent groups, like the Naxals and they operate mainly with SLRs, snatched or looted from security agencies.

Another instance, IC-184, an Indian Airlines plane was hijacked from Kathmandu by ISI backed Pakistani operatives who took the plane to then Taliban controlled Kandahar. India had to free top Kashmiri terrorists in return for the safety of the passengers. One of the freed terrorists Masood Azhar is now in Pakistan after starting his own terrorist group named Jaish-e-Mohammed, now banned by UN. What does that tell you about ISI and Pakistan's involvement?