Celebrity on PashtunForums?

[khushal]

A sociaty is not just built upon the economical structure.
Political Islam and Communism share a common ground on the basis of theory of the state:.

The economic structure of a society has everything to do with how the society will be built up. American and European societies are built up because of their economic structures. China's and India's society is currently being built up because both successfully changed their economic structure. China and India have the same political structure meaning that the economic structure trumps the political structure but one can argue that you need a stable political environment in order to have a stable economical environment and vise-versa because usually political instability is followed by an economic collapse. In fact economist would tell you that humanity's rise and fall in history always had an economic reason behind it, ie the fall of the roman empire, ottoman empire, British empire, Soviet Empire.

You say, that Islam allowes other religions to be practiced.
That´s definitly true.
Communism allows you to pray and do whatever you want in private, too.
.

The freedom to practice religion in public and private contradicts the ideology of communism. In a communist society, the individual's best interests are indistinguishable from the society's best interest. Thus the idea of an individual freedom is incompatible with a communist ideology.

Marxist Origins of Communism, I
Marx did not deny the close connection between personal freedom and property rights. Rather, he accepted their connection, and denounced both as manifestations of what he called "bourgeois freedom." The doctrine of the rights of man was faulty, according to Marx,

1. Not every member of tribes own land.
There are alot of people who work on the lands of landowners.
.

That would be called a feudal system where landlords have all the say and all the power. Its easier to succumb a feudal society because all you have to do is convince a few landlords instead of the whole population to the invaders agenda.
In the American Civil War(the industrialist northerners vs the feudal southerners), it would have been impossible for the south to win because the only ones that fought with passion were the landowners, the ones owning no land had nothing to lose if the northerners won, so they had no interest to fight at least passionatly anyways.
Rural Pashtuns on the other hand are tribal people meaning every tribal member who own land has equal say in tribal affairs. If their interests are violated, they will fight with passion.
You Mostafa, are a Mangal. Unless you have land in Mangal, you have no say in the tribal affairs of the Mangal because you have no interest in Mangal affairs and you have nothing to lose in what ever the Mangal tribe decides to do. You are a Mangal by blood, but you are not considered a member unless you have interest there. Tribal people are harder to succumb because you have to deal with every member that could be thousands of people vs a feudal landlord(Khan) one person. The Brits had a thousand time harder time with the tribal Pashtuns than they did with all of India because of this aspect. India was a feudal society at the time.

2. Feudal Khans existing in "big cities" is a contradiction in itself because to be a feudal Khan, you need agricultural land. Big cities are called big cities because people live in them. They are not places of agricultural production of wheat, fruits etc..

Feudal Khans exist on the outskirt of the cities where there is agriculture land like in Jalalabad, Mardan, Peshawar, etc. but when you go further away from the cities into the so called tribal badlands, there is no such thing as a Khan(feudal landlord). Everyone has land and they all have equal rights within the tribe. No one has a master in the tribe where as in the feudal areas the Khan is the master of the people living and working on his land.
Because of this feudalism in the cities, they are easily occupied by invaders with the consent of the people(the khans, feudal landowners) that are there. Remember it is easier to bribe a Khan(one person) than thousands of Tribal members.

3. The reason why Hekmatyar lost all of his major power bases was that his ideologically driven version of Islam was not acceptable to the people. And Nuristan was and still is to some extent one of the placed he used to have followers.
The existence of insurgent fighters in an area is not an indication that the ordinary people fully agree with them ideologically.
.

The reason Hekmatyar and other warlords lost much support after the Soviets left was because the mission was accomplished. The mission of the tribal people was to become autonomous from central authority. The tribal people dont care about ideology, they care about their way of life. The reason the Taliban are respected is because they respect that autonomy. the reason the cities were looted was becasue security collapsed and the tribal people went there(since there was no security) and looted anything they could get their hands on. It was war booty as far as they were concerned. Remember, they have no interest in a nation state. That's why the city folk call tribesmen barbaric.
The existence of insurgent fighters in an area is an indication that foreign invaders are unwelcomed in the area by the locals. The locals provide these insurgents shelter and food at the least. The invaders purpose is to establish central authority on these people. Since central authority and how tribal societies are structured are a contradiction, violent resistance is certain.

During the Soveit occupation specially Hisb-e Islami Hekmatyar had power bases across the ethnicities and areas all over Afghanistan. Reasons were sufficient funds, weaponry and his ideology that transcended through tribal or regional boundaries.
.

Pakistan sends all the weaponry and funds to Kashmir and they are unsuccessful in wrestling Kashmir from a much weaker economically, weaker politically, and weaker militarily India(as compare it to the two superpowers the Soviet Union and America). The reason Pakistan is unsuccessful in India Kashmir is because India has all the Kashmiri Khans(feudal landlords) in their pockets. As long as the Kashmiri Khans are in their pockets, they will own Kashmir. the Kashmiri Khans deliver the Kashmiri people wholesale to India. the people really have no say.

I have never heard of any Nuristani idealogue.....communist or islamist.
Please keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the Afghan population is Muslim but not idealogically driven.
.

i said if he were to chose an ideology, notice the if in the sentence.

.

Nuristanis with close links to Afghanistan would have fought for Afghanistan without being ideologically driven nationalists with a distinct idea of a nation-state etc.
You make this whole debate a little to easy.
Since Nuristan came under direct rule of Kabul and since they became Muslims, their connection to Afghanistan was strong.
.

You are out of touch with the Tribal people in Afghanistan. I come from the tribal areas close to Mangal. nuristanis only came under direct rule under abdur rahman for a limited time.
Zahir Shaw ruled Afghanistan under the federal system. He had contracts with each tribe including the Nuristani's. He respected their autonomy. Tribal people are against the idea of a Nation state, they prefer their autonomy. Mangal and other Afghan tribesmen fought in the India-Paksitan wars not because they were for the Nation state of Pakistan but because they wanted to bring back war booty. When Amanalah Khan was deposed and the Tajiks took over Kabul, it was Nadir Shaw who approached the Karlanri Tribes of Mangal, Zazai, Wazir, Masud, and others to go take back Kabul not because they were for the nation state of Afghanistan, but because Nadir Shaw promised them favors from the Kabul Kingdom.

.

For example, the whole field hockey team of Afghanistan were almost completely Nuristanis. Their presence in sociaty was visible..

Your looking at this as if Afghanistan is like germany. germany is not a tribal society. belonging to a sports team has nothing to do with how a society is structured. There are many members of Pakistan sport teams that come from FATA, but FATA is administered differently from the rest of Pakistan. The tribes of FATA have contracts with the pakistani state, they are autonomous. Notice that in Kurram tribal agency, Pakistans flag was risen for the first time in 60 years. Why did they not have it there for the past 60 years, because they are autonomous. You should be familiar with Kurram, its in your neighborhood of Mangal.

Forces enter militant strongholds in Kurram
After taking control of these areas, the troops first hoisted the national flag on government buildings. It was for the first time Pakistani flags were seen flying on government buildings there,” said an official.

[khushal]

The Royals always relied on tribal chiefs and Khans because those Khans could rally armed tribal armies, support the King or in some cases, bring down whole dynasties by revolting.

The Khans were respected members of communities and there are slightly different ways in Pashtun sociatiy how Khans or elders are elected.

To give you a rough overview:

The Pashtuns are separated along the imaginary border south of Paktika province into softer Pashto (Greater Kandahar region) and the rougher Pakhto ( from Nuristan to Paktika).

The election of Khans or tribal elders depends on the areas, too.

For example:
the Greater Kandahar area always elected well-known, wealthy and powerfull men as their Khans. Influental people with backing in the population.

In the Greater Paktia areas, elders or so-called "speen geereys" (Whit Beards) were respected people who were known for their wisdom, their nobility, achievements during times of war and modesty and humbleness.
Not every "White Beard" was rich or a big landowner.

In the eastern Provinces, I am not really sure.
I think they have more in common with the deep tribal systems of the Greater Paktia areas.

In general, Pashtun sociaty favours men who have two major qualities:

"tura", means sword literally. A person who has "tura" or is "turyalay" is considered a good warrior, brave, honest and sincere.

"aql", means reason literatlly. A warrior without reason or intellect, is almost useless because he cannot graps the complexity of daily life, difficult choices regarding his family and tribe.
Sometimes "aql" and the term "qalam" are used interchangeably....."qalam" means pen literally. A person who has "qalam" is considered wise, literate and thoughtfull.

A Khan has unite these two main qualities......tura and aql or qalam.

The tribal elders are different from the Khans.
Khans are literally feudal landlords. Feudal landlords basically have a lot of land and people that live on it or work on it answer to the feudal landlord. Khans dont have to be brave, but many are selfish and ruthless. Khans who are on the outskirts of the cities deliver the people that live and work on his land to the king or to who ever rules the city.

Tribal elders(speen gheree-white beards) on the other hand are elected by tribal members. Like mostafa said courage, intellegence and character is important in order to be elected, respected and have confidence by the tribes.
In Nuristan, Tribal elders would exist, not Khans.

[bernardwhite]

1) what about the term "warlord"?

who uses this term? what does it imply?

would a tribal Khan ever identify himself as a "warlord"?

[graveyardofempires]

^
so this is how it works

when their is peace the tribal elder is a source of advice and solving feuds etc.

when their is a foreign occupation than the elder becomes the supreme general all the youngsters from 15 to 25 soldiers and the guys in 30s/40s as commanders.

this is called arbakai

a tribal elder might well saction war against a foreign invader and take part in it but tht doesnt mean he will eb a warlord.

the term warlord probably doesnt exist in Afghanistan and it is something created by the western media but it is also nowadays use din Afghanistan in dari language saying jungsalar.By this jungsalar they dont mean tribal leaders etc but those people mostly close aides to karzai people such as fahim.

so a tribal khan might tak eup arms but when the struggle has finished he will go back to normal life while a warlord will be living off warlordism.

[khushal]

1) what about the term "warlord"?

who uses this term? what does it imply?

would a tribal Khan ever identify himself as a "warlord"?

First the term tribal khan is a contradiction. Tribes are lead by tribal elders or tribal leaders, they are elected so they answer directly to the tribe. Khans are large landowners who control the people that live and work for them on their land. They are not elected and only answer to themselves. Their motive so to keep the land they have and not lose it to a rival khan.

A Warlord is a regional military commander who is autonomous. Before the Taliban came into the picture, Afghanistan was ruled by five major warlords who were autonomous and a visa was required if one wanted to travel from an area controlled by one warlord into another warlords area in the same country.

It is possible for a Khan or a tribal elder to be a warlord but no one really identify himself as a warlord since it is considered a negative term.

[bernardwhite]

what tribes are represented in Nuristan?

[graveyardofempires]

^
thats a tough one
they are extremely "to themselves" people.

[یاسمینه]

If you need detailed info and you have time, you can try to find a books/texts written by Max Klimburg - expert on Nuristan.

[bernardwhite]

is "nuristani" considered a tribe or just the people from Nuristan?

[KingKhan]

is "nuristani" considered a tribe or just the people from Nuristan?

Their considered a group of people. Like for example: Pashtun, Tajiki, Punjabi etc. . .

Their numbers are small though compared to those I just listed.


To be honest the writer of the play I think (assuming) really didn't do much of his homework. Nuristani, is a bit different then a Pashtun. Nuristani have a different language, customs, and just over a 100+ years ago had their own religion.

[bernardwhite]

yes, I am beginning to see this conflict in my research.

yet there are Pashtun's in Nuristan. yes?

or rather is it just that there are Pashto speakers in Nuristan?

what defines a Pashtun?

is it not possible for someone to identify himself as both a Pashtun and a Nuristani?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Tough Question Bernie ....hope you don't mind me calling you Bernie? Makes me think of that movie Weekend At Bernie's

anyhow, that's a tough question

Pashtun identity is not as concrete as it is made out to be, there is a great deal of liquidity in respects to being Pashtun, many originally non-Pashtun clans eventually became assimilated into the Pashtun tribal structure and became "tribes" of Pashtuns.

At this point in time Nuristanis are a completely different ethnic group; there was Pashtuns in Nuristan, later migrants to the region.

[IamDZJ]

so bernard dude, are you acting in this play or are you writing it?? that seems like a whole lot of research for a character...like seriously..

[khushal]

yes, I am beginning to see this conflict in my research.

yet there are Pashtun's in Nuristan. yes?

or rather is it just that there are Pashto speakers in Nuristan?

what defines a Pashtun?

is it not possible for someone to identify himself as both a Pashtun and a Nuristani?

Most Nuristani's are pashto speakers but that does not make them ethnic Pashtun, and yes ethnic pashtuns do live in Nuristan but are a minority.

Pashtuns are defined as someone that can link descent from a pashtun tribe, speaks pashto, and practices pashtunwali. The first is universally accepted, the latter two guidelines are required by hardcore Pashtuns that think character and attitude are as important as genetic link.

[graveyardofempires]

Tough Question Bernie ....hope you don't mind me calling you Bernie? Makes me think of that movie Weekend At Bernie's

anyhow, that's a tough question

Pashtun identity is not as concrete as it is made out to be, there is a great deal of liquidity in respects to being Pashtun, many originally non-Pashtun clans eventually became assimilated into the Pashtun tribal structure and became "tribes" of Pashtuns.

At this point in time Nuristanis are a completely different ethnic group; there was Pashtuns in Nuristan, later migrants to the region.

utter non sense

you should educate yourself before speaking about Pashtuns.
and i mean by going to AFG and not on wikipedia.