Talk:Pashtuns

Archives Talk:Pashtun/Archive 1 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 2 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 3 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 4 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 5 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 6 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 7 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 8

Montage of pashtun people

Can someone put up (or make a new one) the montage of pictures that goes in the info box on the right hand side. For example; {{Infobox Ethnic group |group = Turks
Türkler |image =

THANKYOU

Why Pakistan is above afghanistan

Pakistan was created as remedy for India' Muslim, what the hell Pashtons has to do with it? Absolutely NOTHING! Indeed in 2001 the population of Pashton in Pakistan was stated by Paki government as 8% out of 140 million people, which will make pashtons 11.2 million and after 9/11 the population of Pashtons in pakistan all the sudden tripled to 28 millions. The fact is that most of those Pashto speaker of Paksitan (exception of FATA) are only Pashtons by language, not by race culture. These are the native Indic people whom have adopted Pashto language after being conquered by Pashtons. Calling these people Pashton or Afghan is like calling an African who now speak English as first language an Anglo.' cheers Altsoba

I beg to differ. I'm part Pakistani Pakhtun and part Hindkowan(Punjabi Pathan) so I would know about Pakhtuns in the area. Pakhtuns in the NWFP, FATA and Balochistan are all of the same stock as the Pakhtuns over the border in Afghanistan. With the exception of the Hindkowans (who are a small minority) the Pakhtuns are of a different genetic heritage from most other Pakistanis (who are Punjabi, Sindhi and Muhajir). They are more closely related to the Iranic peoples in terms of physical type than they are to the Indic Aryan peoples. Also, the Pakhtuns on both sides of the Durand line were once one. It was only due to British conquests in the region that we got separated from the Afghans politically. And one more thing, Pakhtuns are an integral part of Pakistan if not more so than they are in modern Afghanistan. The Pakhtun population in Pakistan is double that of the one in Afghanistan and Pakhtuns are well represented in most aspects of Pakistani society. I would seriously recheck your facts. ~ User: Afghan Historian

WHO IS RUNNING THIS ARTICLE?

Why are there Hindustani actors on this article? Why aren't their Pakhtun celeberteis why these Bollywood "Pathans" are on the Pashtun page? What do they have to do with us? Who is Sharukh Khan Fardeen Khan Chengez Khan ? They are Pashtun based on WHAT? Who is running this article now Parsiwans and Indians? Take this garbage off and put some real Pashtuns like Bacha Khan Achkazai Ghani Khan Shinwari Baba Khyal Mohammad Sardar Ali Nashenas real Pakhtuns take these fake Hindustanis OUT!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sync2k5 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

I am Pashtun from Kandahar, Afghanistan, and I am the one who added Indian celebrities to Pashtuns article because they are Pashtuns by blood. This is not about who you like or who you don't like. It's about who is Pashtun and who isn't. You may add all the Pashtuns of the world but you must not delete people who you might not like. Sharukh Khan, Salman Khan, Amir Khan, Fardeen Khan, Feroz Khan and many other Khans are all Pashtuns from their father's side. In fact, they are all "Afghans", which is the name their ancestors called themselves. If my son is born in USA...does that make him no longer Pashtun? will my son be considered a white American? The fact is that everyone who knows those Indian movie actors also know that they are Afghans. Pashtuns, Pathans, Afghans are all the same people, it depends what name you call yourself.

My dear brother! what ever ur name is! i am also from kandahar, y dont we talk about Ahmad shah baba, Mirwais Nika, Nazo ana, Malalie maiwandi that we r talking about Shahrukh khan and salman khan?? u r betraying ur home land and its history! our own people r to be admired not the khans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.12.10 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The word or name "Afghanistan" appeared in the memoirs of Emperor Babur, Dated: 1525 A.D. "...In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..." [1]

That explains that in the past (at least in 1500s and onwards) Pashtuns were called "Afghans"...the area in which Pashtuns lived was called "Afghanistan" and the language they spoke was called "Afghani". User:NisarKand November 5, 2006

Blood is irrelevent to the matters of Pashtuns. There is no evidence that Pashtun decent from one single common ancestor. If you were to believe the lingage of Qais, then according to that Sajra Durranis, and all other Afghan tribes are Afghans while the hill tribes are of Pakhtun stock. The Karlanris can not be linked with the rest of Qais sons, therefore the Karlanris are the original Pakhtuns while the later, sons of prince Afghana are Jews or bani-Israeli. Bring me the Sajra-i-Afghan and I can prove it to you. It is in the articles of the Afghan Chronicles that Karlnaris are adopted, hence are not of the same stock. ----The reason why I am bring this up is to you prove to you from your own sources that Pakhtuns can not be labeled just by blood. By blood they can be from any forefather. Pakhtuns or ethnic Afghans are distinguished by their cultural treats. Dilip Kumar, Sharukh Khan, Amir Khan, Fardeen Khan, Salman Khan practice the lifestyle of Hindustanis, therefore they are Hindustanis and not Pashtuns,Pathans, or Afghans. If your son is born in America, and he speaks the language of the white man, he lives according to the standards of the white man, and he is provide to be A WHITE MAN, then he is a white man. Pakhtun/Afghan are an ethno-linguist group, they are not a RACE, RACE is a falwed concept. It's not about liking or dislinking, its about facts. All Hindustani "Pathans" don't speak, practice, or live by Pakhto or Pakhtunwali. They do not recongize Afghanyat, hence they are of Hindustani origins. I have met Dilip Kumar and there is nothing Afghan/Pakhtun about him, nor does he cares. Sharukh Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Amir Khan, Ferdan Khan and all these other Khans are not proven Pathan/Afghans/Pakhtuns neither by blood, language, heritage, or culture. It is you who like them to be Afghans and Pakhtuns because they have the name KHAN. Sharukh Khan is a Hindkowal, so is Dilip Kumar, the father of Saif Ali Khan is a Nawab some claim to be Moghul, Ferdan Khan father might speak KOCHAAA and LOYE SHAY in hindi movies but that doesn't make him an Afghan or Pakhtun. I suggest you look up ETHNICITY before you asscoiate Bollywood stars with a qoom that has nothing to do with them. They might share our genetics, but they do not represent us or have a common goal with us. They are HINDUSTANI. If there are those who are Pakistani, then they are PAKISTANI, and if there are those who are AFGHANISTANI, then they are AFGHANISTANI. These people are repsetives of these nations, not of the ethnicity Afghan or Pakhtun. However if you want them up there fine but how come not a single real Pakhtun celebrity or someone like Bacha Khan is not up there? Why these servants of other nations are being flaunted on a page about Pashtuns who can't even speak or pronounce PAKHTUN OR PAKHTO without coughing??? Sync2k5 04:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NisarKand. I even took the liberty to provide reference to prove that Shah Rukh Khan and Dilip Kumar (Yusuf Khan) are Pashtuns. Please read the following Sync2k5: Shah Rukh, Dilip Kumar invited to Pakistan and Dr. S. Amjad Hussain. According to another reference, Pushtan, Southern of India, there are 11,703,000 Pashtuns in India, 776,000 of them speaking Pashto and Hindko. Including images of Pashtuns from the three major countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India) where they are found gives Pashtuns from these areas representation in the article. Thanks for sharing your knowledge NisarKand. It is very much appreciated. I hope this helps. --Anupam^Talk 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the creator of this discussion. There should be pictures of people who are important to Pashtun identity. I don't see the importance of Bollywood actors to Pashtun identity, unless their movies have something to do with Pashtun identity or they promote Pashtun identity. I don't know much about these actors, but they should have something to do with Pashtun identity/language/culture. Parsiwan 05:37, 6

November 2006 (UTC)

I am totally confused with User:Sync2k5's statements...not making any sense to me. I assume what User:Sync2k5 is trying to say is that Pashtuns living in Pakistan should no longer be considered Pashtuns because they adopted a new country, new language (Urdu) and new way of life (Pakistani lifestyle). Well, I am not going to argue over these issues...have it his or her's way. I strongly believe that Pashtuns are recognized by their blood and not by their language or lifestyle. We can't refuse someone's ethnic background simply because they adopted a new language or new way of lifestyle.

I am Pashtun and I don't think I need to listen to or read from NON-pashtuns what they say or write about us. Because most NON-pashtuns are totally clueless about Pashtuns. As you can see this other person by the name of User:Tajik-afghan|Parsiwan, who is obviously NON-pashtun, stateting that he doesn't see importance of Bollywood actors. First of all...being a Bollywood actor is a profession or a job title...not a lifestyle. We all know that movies are unreal and fake, especially Bollywood movies. It's a form of entertainment for others. And even if we were to some how include or use the Bollywood movie lifestyle with Pashtun lifestyle...it's pretty much the same, except for the language and religion, although in many Bollywood movies Islam does exist. You have to be Pashtun and someone who watched lots of Bollywood movies to know this. Question: How many Pashtuns could there be in the world who don't watch or enjoy Bollywood movies? or who don't know about Sharukh Khan and others?

If we decide and say Sharukh Khan and others are not Pashtuns and they don't belong in Pashtun article...then in which Ethnic groups will they be included? will Hindus write about Sharukh Khan being a Hindu by Ethnics in their article? I don't think they will, because they will determine and say he is not Hindu by Ethnics...therfore, doesn't belong in their Hindu article. I just want to make it clear and easy for everyone....anyone who's parents were Pashtuns should be included in this article, especially their father's side and regardless of where on earth they live, what work they do or what language they now speak. We need to focus on all types of Pashtuns and explain about them. I also want to add image of Mirwais Ahmadzai, who was born in France to an Afghan father and an Italian mother. This makes him Ethnically Pashtun and I'm sure he thinks the same way, although his heritage is of Pashtun and Italian both. In America...the Americans usually call themselves Irish-Americans, Afro-Americans, Scottish-Americans, English-Americans, Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Afghan-Americans and etc., even if their ancestors settled in USA 100s of years ago and intermarried with other different Ethnic groups...they still represent or use their true heritage by placing it before the word "American". This practice is very common in America.

Now we go to Pakistan...if an Afghan is born in Pakistan, they are still citizen and native of Afghanistan...that's Pakistan's law we are dealing with. So let's assume Sharukh Khan's father was Afghan refugee but Sharukh was born in Pakistan and now his son was also born in Pakistan later...that would mean Sharukh Khan's father, Sharukh Khan and his son are all Afghans, even if they were to speak 100% Urdu and live the Pakistani lifestyle. You see you all the confusion?

Besides all this argument...there are nearly 2 billion people in the world who watch Bollywood movies and know the actors as Pashtuns, Pathans or Afghans...and it's going to be very difficult to convince these 2 billion people to say or claim Sharukh Khan and others are not Pashtuns, Pathans or Afghans. User:NisarKand November 7, 2006

You dont understand because you are ignorant to the fact that Pashtuns are not only a race but also an ethno-linguist group. Those people who might have the Pashtun genetic makeup but speak different languages are loyal to those cultures, languages, and hertiages of which they currently are. They do not represent the Pashtun culture, soceity, heritage or language. These people are advocates of their birth nations and MOTHER TONGUES that could be Urdu, Hindi, Farsi etc. By blood we are all connected, what defines us as ethnicity is our cultural differences, our heritages. This is why a Pashtun is one that does Pashto. Agha Pakhtun da che Pakhto kre! Che sook Pakhto nashwahal agha Pakhtun sengy sho? Your logic is stupid! Black Americans do not relate to Africa, they don't bother with Blacks of Africa nor do they care about their problems, nor do they care about their culture, nor do they care about their heritage, speak their languages or practice their religion. They are Black of who can trace their roots to Africa but thats it. There is nothing African about them but their skin color. They are not ethnic Africans. The same applies to all Americans whos ancestors might have come and settled from different parts of the world but today they are Americans and their primary concern is America. When the accomplish something, it will be an accomplishment of America, not of Germany, Ireland, England, or Africa. The same way these non-Pashto speaking Pathans, when they accomplish something the credit goes to their birth nations, their mother tongues, and the community the represent. Your argument that we can't convince people that these people are non-Pashtuns is also absurd. Truth, facts can not scumb to the ignorance of the massses. Also Hinduism is a religion not an ethnic group, so get your own confusion fixed first. Hinduism can be practice by any ethnic group. To say that Hindus of any background will not acccept Sharukh Khan as their own is redicolous and laughible. First of all Sharukh Khan is not the one druming the drum of Afghanyat, Pashtunyat. It is the illiterate and ignorant people amongst Pashtuns and Afghans who are bent upon making him one. Show me one article where Sharukh Khan as declared his love for Pashto, Afghanyat, or in fact Islam? He is very much loved by Hindustanis and Indians. His wife is Hindu/Sikh, his children follow the faith for their mother, his traditions are screwed up to begin with. THERE IS NOTHING AFGHAN, PASHTUN, ABOUT THESE PEOPLE! Just becuse some people wish them to be their AFGHAN idols, doesn't really make them to be. Remove these pathetic pictures of fake icons! Put real Pakhtuns up there. Where is the original author of this article..what happend to mr. tomsday something...???? Sync2k5 08:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not refering to Hindu religion but to "Hindustani" as you claimed Shah Rukh Khan to be. If you was smart enough then you would've quickly understood what I was trying to saying. You are angry because Shah Rukh Khan would never even think about visiting Pakistan. Hahahahahahaha, and perhaps he doesn't like Pakistan's people. But I'm 100% sure he would visit Afghanistan if he finds it safe. Look at Dr. Zakir Naik a very popular Islamic scholar from India, he also proudly says that he is Hindustani. However, that does not mean is is not Muslim. I think one day Shah Rukh Khan will get on TV and tell the world he is Pashtun, who's ancestors were Afghans and that he is part of them. This will make the Pakis happy. ----Pashtun

In Pakistan, ethnic Pushtuns, who also speak Pashtu language are considered Pushtuns. There are many Pushtun tribes that have settled in different parts of South Asia over generations and have adopted the local languages and culture and thus have became part of that ethnic group. By some estimates nearly 25% of Urdu speaking people are ethnic Pushtuns that have adopted Urdu language and intermarried with other Muslim over the centuries. Nearly 45 million people in United States claiming German ancestory although they are now part of English speaking Americans. They are also not considered Germans since they don't speak German. The people who don't speak Pashtun and claiming to have Pashtun ancestory cannot be classified as Pashtuns. I think that the Pashtun are ethnic Pushtuns who also speak Pashtu language and may include their first generation children. If they and their parents don't speak Pushtun then they are longer ethnic Pashtun though they can claim Pastun ancestry.

Siddiqui 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) In Pakistan, ethnic Pushtuns, who also speak Pashtu language are considered Pushtuns. Due! like what else can they be considered as, other than Pashtuns? (2) There are many Pushtun tribes that have settled in different parts of South Asia over generations and have adopted the local languages and culture and thus have became part of that ethnic group. Part of that ethnic group? What ethnic group you're talking about? (3) Nearly 45 million people in United States claiming German ancestory although they are now part of English speaking Americans. These people who claim German heritage in USA are not claiming German citizenships or being from Germany...they are simply saying that their ancestors came to USA from Germany and that they are Germans by heritage (4) They are also not considered Germans since they don't speak German. Who are you to say that they are not considered Germans? and so what if they don't speak German language. There are many people from Asia and other places living in Germany and they all speak German language now...are these people Germans by ethnics because they speak German language? (5) The people who don't speak Pashtun and claiming to have Pashtun ancestory cannot be classified as Pashtuns. I think that the Pashtun are ethnic Pushtuns who also speak Pashtu language and may include their first generation children. If they and their parents don't speak Pushtun then they are longer ethnic Pashtun though they can claim Pastun ancestry. Siddiqui, you are getting confused between Pashto language and Ethnic Pashtuns. Anyone can learn to speak Pashto...that alone does not qualify anyone to be Pashtun. In fact, that means nothing. We Pashtuns believe that "ONLY THROUGH BLOOD" (family background) a person is recognized as Pashtun. User:NisarKand November 7, 2006

Thats news to me. Pashtuns only care about "BLOOD" when it comes to local khels, tabars, and tarbooran. Pashtuns in fact don't care much about the tribe next door who might decent from another forefather. BLOOD amongst Pashtuns only matter when it comes to loyalty, they don't care if one is the son of Ahmed Shah Abdali or Khushal Khan Khattak, if his loyalty is somewhere else he is not accepted as a Pashtun even if he shares the same blood as them. So you are mistaken here. There is a reason why there is so much rivaily between different Pashtun clans. If blood was a big and universal matter then how come it these tribes are easily pitched against each other? Now tell me this, which Pashtun will allow his daughter to be married to a fully BLOOD born Pashtun but is an atheist? Jew, or Christan? Will they allow this BLOOD Pashtun who actually might fallow Hindu religion to marry within their BLOOD? NO, unless you want to end up dead, give it a try. There might be some flexibilty amongstt those who are not in touch with Pakhtunwali and Pakhtunyat, but those who are the core of Pakhto, Pakhtunyat don't only care for blood but many other factors including language, way of life, religion, and loyalty also plays in their interest. AND THATS HOW YOU DEFINE ETHNICTY! Blood linage is just one part of it, other factors come to play as well! HECK even singers musicains who are BLOOD PASHTUNS are not considered PASHTUN because of their profession, they are DAMAAN! and are looked down upon. So how can these filmi actors be accepted as PASHTUNS?Sync2k5 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns are all Sunni Muslims, so things like seeing daughter marrying a Hindu or Athiest Pashtun is the last thing to think of. In America, I've seen Pashtun girls married Kafirs (infidels)...now what would be the difference between a Pashtun Kafir or other regular Kafirs? --NisarKand 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If we were to classify Pushtun "ONLY THROUGH BLOOD" (family background) then there are 20 million people that are able to claim Pashtun ancestory. There are many Pashtun tribes that have settled in different parts of South Asia during Muslim rule and most of them now speak Urdu. By some estimates 20 million Urdu speakers can be considered Pashtun by this defination. Then I should also claim to be ethnic Pashtun ancestory through Yusufzai Rohilla.

Siddiqui 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about Shah Rukh Khan, but I do know this. It is a documented fact that Dilip Kumar is a Pashtun, not only by blood, but by birth, language and upbringing. He was born to Pashto-speaking Pashtun parents in Peshawar NWFP, northern British India prior to Partition. He grew up there till he moved to Bombay for his father's job. He still is a practicing Muslim, has familial links to Pashtuns in Pakistan and is recognized as a celebrity in Pakistan, like one of their own. In fact, his brother is a famous TV actor in Pakistan. Therefore, he is a Pashtun celebrity who must stay on this page. Besides, his real name is Muhammad Yusuf Khan. Dilip Kumar is his screenname. And, he still is a practicing Muslim. Afghan Historian 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dilip Kumar doesn't speak Pashto, he is a Hindkowal. Even so, why should we honor him as a Pashtun when for money and fame he denied his own heritage by changing his name from Muhammad Yusuf Khan to Dilip Kumar. He is not a practicing Muslim, these people dont have religion, nationality or anything. They go with the flow. It is an insult to the Pashtun heritage by putting this character on the same page where great honorible who have sacrficed everything, blood, money, life comforts for Pashtun and Pashto cause yet their picture is not here nor is there a mention of them here but this fake Pathan who adopted a Hindu name, Hindustani identity, by which he is commonly known and only a select few know him as Muhammad Yusuf is honored! Pathetic! This is about facts and research, not someones Bollywood love affair and romance. You like Bollywood heros, go to Bollywood page. Leave Pashtun page for Pashtuns. Sync2k5 08:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think people in the world care about 100% Pashtuns, 50% Pashtuns, 10% Pashtuns or false Pashtuns. The fact is that people in the world just want to learn the basics about Pashtuns, regardless if they are from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Europe, USA or from mars. There are many NON-Pashtuns living inside Afghanistan, who can speak better Pashto language than the average Pashtuns can. What do you call these people? nopes! They are not Pashtuns. They openly say they are Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks or others. If you people want to have editing war over who is Pashtun and who is not, then leave me out of it because it's stupid. As a Pashtun, I am proud of Shah Rukh Khan, Fardeen Khan, Mirwais Ahmadzai and all the rest that gave Pashtuns a good name in the world, regardless what country they reside in. I don't think we will be able to go meet these people and ask them about what religion they really practice inside their home and stuff. That's very silly. Since these people allow the media to write about them as Pashtuns, Pathans or Afghans, then that's what they are. Pashtun

What you think is irrelevent to the topic and factual research. People do care, and people need to be given information as accurate as possible. If someone is researching Pashtuns then let us introduce them to the real Pashtuns, real faces, not some used to be, could be, and we want them to be because they made a song for modanna or dance with miss world. Plus I have never came across a Tajik, Hazarajat, Uzbek from Afghanistan that could speak better Pashto then a Pashtun, however I have come across Pashtuns of Afghanistan who speak better Dari/Farsi then Farsiwans. Even the Afghan title is deluted now since Afghan is not just a ethnicty but nationality which means that anyone born in Afghanistan can call themselves an Afghan. The same is the issue with Pathans, anyone who was not dark featured and was from the North of Hindustan whether if the person was tajik,turkic,hazarajat,arab decent,persian,baloch, was considered a "PATHAN" by indians and still are because they dont know the difference. The question here is not about liking or war over edits but over acadmic research. Sync2k5 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you never came across a NON-Pashtun that speaks better Pashto than the average Pashtuns, then you never been to Afghanistan. The "Afghan" title always included Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and others that were born inside Afghanistan. Well, at least since 1747 that is. I consider all Afghans as brothers, sisters, and people from one nationality, regardless of their backgrounds. Afghans born in Pakistan are not Pakistanis but still Afghan citizens or Afghan nationals. That's the big difference between Afghans and Pakis. The last thing Afghans want to be called is a Paki. The word "Pathan" is used ONLY by Urdu speakers in Pakistan and people in India, refering to ANYONE who is Pashtun. Afghans don't recognize Pathan or Pathans. So Pathan is only a Pakistani and Indian thing. I am Pashtun from Kandahar and all Urdu speaking Pakis call me Pathan when I meet them. Sometimes they also call me "Khan Saab". ----Pashtun

wtf....afghanistan is land of the pashtuns....not pakistan (its land of the clean...but if u all have been there then u wouldnt call it that lol). if u use "pathan" to describe a pashtun all credibility is lost on ur part. Pakistani pashtuns are paki...they maybe pashtun but their nationality is afghan

This article has quickly devolved into a mess since I nominated it for FA status

First and foremost the people who would like to add to the article need to put in references of a CREDIBLE nature and look closely at other encylopedias. That means that Hindowans are a somewhat distinct group, but closely related just like the Tajiks are to the Persians with their own articles. In addition, the excessive pictures of Bollywood actors is silly. One is plenty with mention of others and not a biography as their articles should explain their background. Also, the mention of marital races is very racist and just a British POV of colonial times. Again pointless to write in the intro. This article needs to focus on the CORE Pashtuns who speak Pashto (and those who are bilingual in Hindko do overlap and are acceptable in that regard) and needs to correspond to most other sources. The Pathans of India are diverse and, in many cases, may be related very closely, but are as different as the Parsis are from the Persians. This article, by including sub-groups has become a mess and needs to return to a more academic footing. And it's not surprising that it's under FA review for the aforementioned reasons. I don't have time to be a watchdog for this article, but I believe I have some credibility as I'm the guy who wrote the article that became Featured article in the first place. I think we need to take a look at how other academic articles are written and do more to keep it stream-lined and written well. For the people for whom English is a 2nd language, the additions made need to be better written and have sources and not opinions etc. Thanks. Tombseye 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the History on Attan needs to be moved to another article. It's speculative and not sourced. What is the point of discussing these little details in a GENERAL article on the Pashtun ethnic group? It now looks like a mess frankly. Tombseye 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mashwanis: help needed

Would someone working on this article please have a look at this edit to the much more neglected article Mashwanis? It looks like it is well-intentioned and has content, but it is written in such poor English that as a non-expert on the topic I don't dare even presume I understand it well enough to copy edit it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindkowans and other matters

Pashtuns are defined in nearly every reference book as speakers of Pashto. Now I realize some groups are bilingual and that is a consideation, but the Hindkowans are also a group unto themselves as distinct as Tajiks are from Persians. They are a peripheral group. Also, I have not seen any references that describe any Yusufzai tribes as being Hindko speakers (though some may know it) and the entire section is not sourced and is written badly. And I suggest the History of Attan be moved to Khattak dance and/or Music of Afghanistan because it seems to discuss a specific issue that has little to do with the general article. Also, will people stop adding massive biographies about Bollywood actors. That's what their personal articles are for. This article is a general one about the Pashtuns. Thanks. Tombseye 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Attan dance section to the Khattak dance article where it belongs. In addition, the section on Hindko speakers needs to be either sourced or removed soon. At any rate, this article can simply mention that there are bilingual speakers and leave it at that (as there are bilingual Dari speakers in Afghanistan). Also, I shortened the long bio on Meena Kamal as she deserves her own article, rather than a paragraph devoted to her in a general article. Tombseye 05:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And Shah Rukh Khan is a Hindkowan and thus is technically outside the parameters of this article. We need only mention the bilingual groups as they live in Pashtunistan and maintain some academic order here. Tombseye 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide to me the source that says Shah Rukh Khan is Hindkowan. I want to read it Pashtun Nov. 21, 2006

Hello Tombseye. I decided to replace the image of Feroz Khan with that of Dilip Kumar. I did this because Dilip Kumar is of pure Pashtun ethnic origin as opposed to Feroz Khan whose mother is Iranian. I also felt that the image would be less contentious because of Feroz Khan's comment in Pakistan. Please let me know how you feel about this change. Also, I noticed that you moved the section on Hindko from the Anthropology and linguistics section to the Putative ancestry section. From my understanding, many Pashtuns who reside in Pakhtunkhwa speak Hindko or are bilingual, speaking both Pashto and Hindko. However, I can see why you moved the section on Seraki as it is not a dominant language used by the Pashtuns. Thanks for the time and energy you put forth in this article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Anupam, I did indeed move Hindko and the reasons are that, at some point, the Hindkowans deserve an article of their own. The terminology is confusing to people as the word 'Pathan' is applied to everyone from Afghanistan to claimants in India. My own 'take' is from academic views and academics view those who strictly speak Hindko as a distinct group (Tajiks speak Persian and yet have their own article for example). For this same reason, I believe the Pashtuns who speak Dari are also sometimes an overlapping group and sometimes not. In both cases the Pashto speakers and Tajiks/Hindkowans lived in close and mixed quarters. The bilingual issues is more complicated as indications are that the Hindkowans are increasingly switching to the larger Pashto due to intermarriage I would imagine as well, while Dari remains prominent although Pashtun birthrates in Afghanistan are quite high. Siraiki's situation is even more removed in this regard even though it borders the Pashtun regions. As for the Dilip Kumar situation, I am ok with that. Cheers. Tombseye 15:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "pre-1947 India" stat, as it isnt relevant and it completely underestimates the actual population at the time, which actually subsumed the real Pashtun population of NWFP and Balochistan in NW India, (now Pakistan). Afghan Historian 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have readded the deleted referenced information about Dr. Zakir Hussain. He was born in British India in 1897, before many Pashtuns, and Muslims in general, left for Pakistan. Several sources support my claims on his ethnicity: Please see IndianMuslims.info: Zakir Hussain 1897-1969: President of India, India Press: Dr. Zakir Husain (1897-1969), Glorious India: Dr. Zakir Hussain, etc. In India and some parts of Pakistan, Pashtuns are known as Pathans. This is one reason why most of these Indian articles refer to him as a Pathan, the local name for the ethnic group. This article should not concern people from specific countries, but people of an ethnic group -- that is what the article is about. As a result, I have redded the sentence about him in The Modern Era section where presidents are discussed. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I have readded the information about the reloaction of Pashtun Jews. I have also readded the link to the History of India in the History and origins section. Notice, it does not direct to the History of the Republic of India, but to an article which also discusses the histories of present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Hussain wasn't an ethnic Pashtun as he is not a Pashto speaker and none of the links make the claim that he does. He's an Indian Pathan and although many are related to Pashtuns, he's not within the scope of this article which is about Pashto-speaking Pashtuns. Also, the usage of Pathan ALSO denotes local people regardless of whether they are Pashto-speakers or not. Until we have some evidence that he speaks Pashto he can't be part of the article. I've studied the Pashtuns quite a bit within an academic context and the Indian connection is mostly a legacy of Islamic invasions and the British era during which parts of Afghanistan were annexed to British India. We are focused here upon the Pashtunistan area and Pashto-speakers. The vast majority of Pathans in India have putative ancestry and are thus not Pashtun as per the parameters of this article. Tombseye 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tanoli Pashtun dispute

Hi guys, sorry to return with this issue, but there is a strong dispute with a Tanoli user that they are an ACCEPTED Pashtun tribe by ALL pashtuns. I have only ever read contrary info re this, in that although in cultural practice they are similar but their origin is not accepted to be of Pashtun at all and they are most likely of Indian descent. He hasn't provided any proof at all and is adamant that they are very much accepted as an elite Pashtun people by all other Pashtuns. Although I do believe that Tanolis are very much ethnically mixed to be from a singular background anymore. But can anyone here provide any light on;

• Are they accepted as Pashtuns by yourselves?

• Have they always been so?

• Have you heard contrary to them?

• What do you know of them? Even basic info would suffice.

Many thanks to all users, lots of info here to learn from :-)--Raja 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They are a mixed group it seems. Some are Hindko speakers and are thus Hindkowans, a group of mixed Pashtun and Punjabi origin, while others speak Pashto and would thus not be considered quite as 'mixed', but culturally there is an affiliation with the Pashtuns obviously. This is a recurring issue as the Encyclopedia Britannica looks at Hindkowans as a mixed or transitional group, which some people find disagreeable, BUT the language issue can't be ignored as Pashtuns generally speak Pashto, an Iranian language, while the Hindkowans (who aren't bilingual) speak an Indic tongue, Hindko. As for 'acceptance', generally if they can speak Pashto in addition and practice Pashtunwali (or Pakhto), they are 'accepted' as far as I know, but there might be some disagreement. Ultimately, it should be our job to present the facts with reputable sources. Tombseye 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats an interesting point Tombseye re the language point. There are certainly Hindko speakers in this group. This adamant user is trying to allege that the Yousafzai origin of the Tanolis is well known and accepted by all neighbouring tribes and that they have no Indic origin at all, contrary to documented proof that this acceptance is nil and other Pashtuns do not recognise them as amongst them. It would be ideal to see some proof or any other opinions regarding the Yousafzai origin issue. Thanks for your help so far Tombseye --Raja 15:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: I don't think that picture is relevant to Pashtun ancestry.)

Shah rukh Khans parents are both pathans so thats why it is relavent. even shah rukh Khan himself said in a TV interview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.247.228.91 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

wtf lmao....he is a hindu bindu....he aint pashtun

No, Shah Rukh's father comes from Peshawar (which doesn't confirm that he is a Pathans, as there are many other tribes there. His mother was so not a Pathan, she was an Indian freedom fighter Shah Nawaz Khan (general)'s daughter.--Alcides 16:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan is nation of Pashtuns

Please do not try to put Pakistan above Afghanistan, as Afghanistan is the headquarters of all Pashtuns, regardless if the number of Pashtuns is lower than Pakistan. The Afghan Pashtuns are 100% real and authentic Pashtuns, as the Pakis are not. Most Paki Pashtuns speak mainly Urdu as their official language. Rahim Shah sings 5% in Pashto, while more than 95% in Punjabi, so he is not popular than Farhad Darya. Darya sings 50% in Pashto and 50% in other languages. Also, do not remove sourced images because that violates the rules.--NisarKand 07:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

preach it brother mannnn!

lol you loser, farhad darya is half persian and half pakhtun. please tell me some pashtun songs and i will tell you all persian songs of him. you will see farhad darya sang 90% into Parsi e darbari (language of noble persians and their kings) than in a backward pagho dagho language without any develops. What did you awghuls do in the last hundred years?? Just riddin donkeys?? Farhad Darya self callhimself as Tajik. In francfort in his last concert he said he is a proud persian,a tajik although he loves the pashtune people, too.

PAKISTAN IS THE NATURAL HOME OF PASHTUNS

Do not make hate related changes to the article. I have noticed your racist attitude towards Pakistani Pashtuns because of the current situation in your country. But, Pakistan is the natural home of the Pashtuns since it homes some 28 million Pashtuns and 3 million Afghan refugees who do not want to return to Afghaniland. Pashtuns in Afghaniland are mixed with Dari-speakers (Tajik, Hazara, and Usbeks) like Farhad Darya and thus have lost there Pashtuness. I was kind enough in leaving his picture there since you guys have no other singers. Also, I have updated the article based on the current world events. Thus, do not reverse my edits blindly.--Napoleon12 10:10 am, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan better be the natural home to the Pashtuns.--NisarKand 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You came out of no where and blindly removed all my edits, which are sourced by CIA, Encyclopaedia Britannica and other well known Encyclopaedia, Dupree and others...and advicing me not to revert your nonsene? Baluchistan, N.W.F.P., F.A.T.A. are not permanently territories of Pakistan, and that's where most Pashtuns live. Pakistan is a nation of Punjabis not Pashtuns. I'm sure the Punjabis feel that way. About the current situation in my country? Seeing my country being rebuilt by USA and Europe suppose to be bad? I think we are happier than ever before. As a result of Pakis making fun of poor Afghan refugees living in their country, on October 8, 2005 Allah (Almighty God) Punished Pakistan with a massive earthquake, which killed 150,000 Pakis and turned into refugees another 3 million Pakis. Now that's bad situation, don't you think? This is not about hate or racism, it's about reality. Pakis always assume that every Afghan online must be living in Pakistan as if Pakistan is the only other country, besides USA and Europe, to have internet in their country. Now lets leave this issue...my edits are well sourced and I suggest you try not to delete or remove them. Afghanistan means the "Land of Afghans"...and Afghan means Pashtun....check -----> Origins of the name Afghan. By percentage, Afghanistan has the highest percentage of Pashtuns. At the same time, Pakistan is the 6th most populous Hindu nation (Hinduism by country).--NisarKand 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop living in this dream world and wake up. Today, France is reducing the number of soldiers from Afghanistan as reported by BBC. Nato will soon follow and leave the Americans in a mess just like in Iraq. God forbid.......Pakistan will have a bigger refugee problem than before. Anyway, we should discuss the article in a polite constructive manner benefitting both parties. --Napoleon12 11:35 am, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States and Europe is not leaving Afghanistan anytime soon. Especially not until they help Afghanistan's government take half of Pakistan back. That means all Pashtun Pakis will become Afghans again, the same way their dads or grandads were. If you really are Paki, which I doubt, you should realize that every day airplanes full of Pakis are deported from USA and the west. Pakis are illegally flocking to the west. At least the Afghans living in Pakistan as refugees are there legally by approved United Nations agreements. There are only 2.4 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan as of now (according to the latest census of Pakistan and United Nations' UNHCR reports) and Afghans are going back to their lovely country every year by the hundred thousands. Afghans love their country so much and they don't want to be refugees in other countries, especially not in a poor country like Pakistan. Don't worry about Afghans going back to Pakistan as refugees in the future, that is not going to happen. They left their country because of a very big powerful country (USSR) that invaded it. Again, just 2 minutes of earthquake created the same number of Paki refugees in Pakistan as it took 10 years of Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. At least Afghans ruled your Pakistan nation in the past, and that is respect for the Afghan people.--NisarKand 18:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Take your hate messages some where else. I can understand why the truth hurts so much for you COWARD Afghans living in Europe or America. If you love Afghanistan SOOOO MUCH, come back and live there, LOL. --Napoleon12 1:57 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan is now a commonwealth of the United States, so it doesn't matter if we live in USA or in Afghanistan. Afghans are known world-wide as the bravest people on earth. Why would only you call them cowards? And you are not a Paki but a Kizilbash Tajik or Parsiban. You are the same user as User:Tajik, Parsiban and several others...coming here to disturb and create problems between Pashtuns of Pakistan and Pashtuns of Afghanistan. We Pashtuns always consider our Ethnic before our nationality...as other Pashtuns and they all will agree.--NisarKand 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Napeleon12, I can see why you would put Pakistan at the top, however your reasoning for it is very ridicules. And you should change the name of this discussion. This is an encyclopedia, not internet forum. Both of you should remember that. I will put more thought about this, but for now I will leave Pakistan at the top. Meanwhile please read this Afghan. Behnam 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Parsiban, don't waste your time here on this nonsense of yours...I work for the US government as I explained to you before and I have special computer that can track down any online user. You are the same person as User:Napolean12. Sucker!...if you want, I can reveal everything here with your first time coming here to Wikipedia in January 2006. Hahahaha --NisarKand 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

STOP THIS FIGHTING!!! You are both Muslims brothers; you should treat eachother with respect & courtesy! The theory of Afghanistan being the home of Pashtuns is obsolete because, the NWFP provincial government has voted with majority in renaming the province to “Afghania”. This will influence the Pashtuns living in Afghanistan to tilt and become more Pro-Pakistani. Eventually, it will lead to the absorption of southern Afghan provinces by Pakistan due to economic and stability reasons. But, that is my opinion and not someone else’s.--Napoleon12 5:16 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason they are naming the NWFP province to Afgania is to clearly give signal to Pakistan's government that NWFP is a province of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has a much better chance to get rich fast and have a much better security. You must always remember that Afghanistan was in major war since late 1970s, which could not focus on stabalizing the country during those wars. But now the country is seeing the brighter side, it is being rebuilt and security is improving very rapidly, dispite the fact that some people claiming to be Taliban and blowing their selves up. USA wants to use the country as a major military center. It feels safer in a country with less population compare to those with high population. There are 87 American and NATO built military bases so far in Afghanistan...plenty more are going to be built in the future. The American military command center for Asia will be in Afghanistan. As the one for the middle east is in Qatar. Next time when you see or hear the name Afghanistan, think of it as America because America controls the country. Besides that...even if America and NATO nations were not involved in Afghanistan, Iran will step in. If you read Afghanistan's history, this is the reason why the country cannot be conquered by any foreigners. When one tries to take possesion of it..the other side steps in and helps. Now lets see...Iran's economy is 6 times higher than Pakistan's....not to mention that Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserves, including lots of natural gas. In weapons, Iran has much advanced weapons than Pakistan's. If both Afghanistan and Iran get together, they can easily take possesion of entire Pakistan in less than one month. India will also step in and take it's portion of Pakistan's land. During that time, I doubt it if USA or other western countries would try to help Pakistan, a nation that has land disuptes with both neighbors and having a population of 165 million people (most live below the poverty line).--NisarKand 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep dreaming like always, LOL!!! Isn't that what your leader Dauod Mohammad Khan tried to do? B/c of your obsession with the Durand Line, it lead to the direct invasion of Afghanistan and the deaths of millions of innocent Afghans. GREAT JOB!!! I APPLAUSE!!! BRAVO!!! You Afghans will never learn from your mistakes, LOL!!! I will close this useless debate with a proverb, HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!!! LOL!!!--Napoleon12 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not obsessed with the Durrand Line, in fact, I hope a permanent border is made there so that we Afghans can finally live in peace in our country. We don't profit from the Durrand Line in anyway...only the border theives, drugs, weapons and illegal merchandise smugglers do on both sides of the Durrand Line. If the border is sealed, Pakistan will become more isolated...by us not allowing any Pakistani trade to pass into my country. Also, we will shut down the Kabul River on Pakistan so that it slowly dies from thirst...LOL. We, on the other hand, have access to Iran's sea port (due to water sharing treaties)...India right now building a new highway from Iran's southern seaport directly to Kanadahar in Afghanistan...which is much suitable, faster and reliable than Pakistan's seaports. Our airports are also improving for air trade. We are becoming less dependent on Pakistan. But Pakistan, without Afghanistan, cannot get electricity from Tajikistan or do other trades on land. Iran just told Pakistan yesterday that it will not provide natural gas. If Afghan government decides and say no pipeline will be allowed on its soil to Pakistan...then slowly Pakistan will become an energy-less country because its own gas is about to run out in 7 more years. Only option left for Pakistan would be to buy from Qatar or other Arab countries, which will cost them arms and legs. I sugges you try to learn what's going on first before you discuss issues like these here.--NisarKand 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

About the deaths of the approximately 600,000 to 2 million innocent Afghans defending their country from Communism...that's not something to be ashamed...it's something to be proud of. Communism was the biggest monster on earth for a very long time and we Afghans put an end to it by also sacrificing some of our people while at it. If you look at world war 2...about 60 million people sacrificed their lives to end Nazism and all those that died while saving the world from evil regimes like those in the past will always be remembered and praised. That's pride ma man...something you Pakis don't know about.--NisarKand 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The tone and language of much of the preceding few sections is not polite or made in good faith, and is not appropriate in Wikipedia. Moreover, racists (and I am specifically referring to White Supremacists) who only see people as not one of us can and will use any internal disputes amongst peoples other than theirs to spread their own lies and propaganda. So, be careful when you show disrespect to your neighbour, because strangers may take your words and twist them for their own ends. I would also point out that "Paki" is considered a derogatory diminutive when used in the United Kingdom (although not often in the rest of the English speaking nations). It is possible to discuss, and even strongly disagree, on Wikipedia without resorting to cultural and/or nationalistic slights. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Please feel free to remove this comment should it be felt not be of any help in this situation.

Don’t confuse Balochis with Pashtuns

The Baloch people do not consider themselves as ethnic Pashtuns. Baloch tribal leaders are currently conducting an insurgency against outsiders such as Pashtuns, Afghan refugees and Punjabis who are flocking to the province because of an economic boom. The Nationalistic Balochis leaders fear a demographic shift against the native people of the province. --Napoleon12 11:58 am, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me one single report about Baloch fighting with Pashtuns? Baloch are anti-Punjabis and anti-all other non-Pashtuns (Hazaras, Tajiks, Iranians, and etc.) BUT NEVER PASHTUNS as they are both friends since ages. You keep talking outta your back, with your own POVs User:Tajik...hahahahaha.--NisarKand 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns living in Balochistan have migrated their and are not considered Balochi by the native population. But, Balochistan does consists of small pockets of Pashtun communities particularly the Quetta. --Napoleon12 1:10 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you all worrying about other ethnics if you're not even one? Balochistan is always home to Pashtuns and they go back and forth all the time with no restrictions at all or no fear of any type. If you are non-Pashtun or non-Baloch, try going to Balochistan by road and see what happens to you there. Hahahahaha....Baloch people go to southern Afghanistan freely also because we allow them. Don't worry about Baloch and Pashtuns, as they are both friends and they always will be.--NisarKand 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

THAT'S THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD. There is a full scale insurgency against outsiders. READ THE NEWS, RETARD! Since the 1970s there has been some small-scale violence. The area had been badly affected by fighting and instability in Afghanistan, with arms and refugees flooding the province. Small attacks have occurred against coal miners, oil prospectors, and energy infrastructure. Balochis have a seperate culture, language and not to mention province. Read Balochistan--Napoleon12 2:01 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a name of the province (Balochistan), as almost half the population of Balochistan is Pashtuns. Go do search online on the exact number of population of each ethnics in Balochistan and you will learn the truth. It's a waste of time here arguing that Pashtuns are only small pockets when in reality almost half of the population is Pashtuns. I don't have time to bring reports here so I suggest you do it on your own as I've done previosly. I am a very educated Pashtun, and you suckers are just here to explain your own thoughts and feelings. That does not do any good for you because things don't change with your thoughts.--NisarKand 09:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Soon the Taliban will step up the BOMBINGS in the interior of Afghanistan. Eventually, the Americans and Nato will have withdraw from the country and leave it in chaos. To them IRAQ is more important because of its oil reverses. The only solution will be to divide Afghanistan between its neighbors on ethnic grounds (Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). In a few months or years most of the world’s Pashtuns will be bought under the leadership of NWFP (Afghania) with American GREEN LIGHT and Afghanistan will cease to exist by 2015. HE HE!!! . --Napoleon12 2:15 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a nice plan you have there, but everyone have their own plans. It's only a matter of who Allah (God almighty) chooses as the Kings to rule the region. America = Green Light? Afghanistan is a nation that nobody can conquer. Even the most strict or pure religious orthadox Islamic fundementalists (Taliban) nearly got whiped out on the very sacred soil of Afghanistan. It's believed by the locals that a handful of soil from Heaven is dropped on there. Prophet Mohammad's (PBUH) cloak and piece of hair are also in Afghanistan (Kandahar). The same cloak he wore while he went closer to Allah (God almighty). In 2001, Mulla Omar opened the box which contained the cloak and pulled it out in public, it was the same time period his Empire (Taliban) crumbled and destroyed, him removed from power to a running fugitive man. Afghanistan has many deep unbelievable things inside it, it's a very strange place. If you step inside Afghanistan with bad intentions, you won't make it out alive. But if you step inside with a good intention, you make it out good. If I was Afghanistan's neighbor, I would be always scared because it's always the poor people that come to invade the richer countries. For example, poverty modivates poor people to go take others under. In this case, if Afghans decide...they will invade Iran like how they did during Hotaki's times of 1722, and take all the riches from Iran to Afghanistan. Same thing with Pakistan or India, the poors will do anything to get your treasures ($$$$). But those who are not poor, are always cowards and afraid of thieves or people that will take their property. This means, Pakistan, Iran, India should always be afraid of Afghanistan because it's just a matter of time that Afghans decide to take your treasures. Don't worry much about the northern countries (Turkemistan Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), they are poor powerless and also very isolated...they don't want any trouble. The way you said about Afghanistan being vonurable at the moment, shows that you are not smart thinker.--NisarKand 20:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have clearly stated above is your prerogative which is separate from what Pashtuns think in Pakistan. Only the Khuda and time will tell the future and not you or me.--Napoleon12 3:32 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That again proves that you are User:Tajik because he or she always contradicts in his or hers statements....I mean look above what you stated early (up...before my post) you first explained "Soon the Taliban will step up the BOMBINGS in the interior of Afghanistan. Eventually, the Americans and Nato will have withdraw from the country and leave it in chaos"....and now you said..."only the Khuda and time will tell the future and not you or me".--NisarKand 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Now what does the Khuda suppose to mean? Hahahahahaha. That explains that you don't believe in Allah (God almighty)...I suspect that you are a communist. Hahahahaha--NisarKand 09:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Napoleon12 here. I have said the same thing before, Baluchis are not Pashtun and do not consider themselves Pashtun. To say Baluchis are Pashtun is extremely incorrect and definatly a POV. There is no source that says Baluchis are Pashtuns. It is a ridicules thing to say in my opinion, unless you can find just one source that claims this. -- Behnam 04:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tajik-afghan, who said that Baloch and Pashtuns were the same people? Are you drunk man? Maybe you are fighting your inner self by your own thoughts perhaps because nobody in this conversation claimed of Pashtuns and Baloch to be the same people.--NisarKand 09:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Balochis are not Pashtuns, end of story. Plus, I have considerable evidence to prove their heritage.--Napoleon12 5:18 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's funny is that both users, User:Tajik-afghan (Parsiwan) and User:Napoleon12, spelled the word Balochis for the Baloch people. This is not even the proper way to spell it. LOL... sucker! --NisarKand 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Farhad Darya

I am leaving Farhad Darya's picture on the article b/c he is an Afghan citizen and not mixed. Also, important to note is that Farhad Darya is not a pure Pashtun and is clearly mixed with Tajiks. --Napoleon12 12:18 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what you do? sooner or later all your vandalism will be restored one way or another. Records stay here permanently, so that old images may be restored in the future. If you come here to start trouble with others by removing their edits, you're just wasting your time here.--NisarKand 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

SAD!!! B/c I will combat vandalism according to the rules.--Napoleon12 2:08 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Farhad Darya, regardless of him being half Tajik, has contributed enormously to Pashto music/culture. He is one of the more prominent Pashto singers and so his picture is infact very relevant to that section. Behnam 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't twist things around....Farhad Darya's father is Pashtun and his mother maybe Tajik...that qualifies him to Pashtun. But does not qualify him as Tajik. Why you purposly hide the Pashtun part and only explain the Tajik part? Remember new born person carries the father's last name...not their mothers. A woman that marries a man attains the man's last name...not the other way around.--NisarKand 09:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Farhad Darya does not qualify to be a Pashtun or a Tajik b/c, he is mixed! Regardless, we must recognize his achievements towards Pashto music.--Napoleon12 5:21 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Farhad Darya is pashtun, and i bet if we look at any of ur lineages u guys would not be full pashtun either. So stop hating and listen to some babu lali

Abdul Ahad Mohmand

I have agreed with NisarKand to post the picture of Abdul Ahad Mohmmand as a source of Pashtun pride..--Napoleon12 2:41 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC

If you want you may go ahead and remove or delete the entire article on Pashtun people...like we give a $h!t about it. Man we Pashtuns don't want people to know about us...cause we lik it that way...hahahahahahahaha you sucker!.--NisarKand 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

NisarKand, I suggest you be a little polite and show respect with some courtesy.--Napoleon12 5:23 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nisar should behave like a perfect contributor. Haider 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Get lost! nobody can be perfect. Only Allah (God almighty) is perfect. --NisarKand 11:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Roger! I am lost. I think you must be using "Kand" for Kandhar at the end of Nisar if I am not wrong? Haider 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are the first one to recognize this. The way you spelled Kandhar means you're from India.--NisarKand 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to my dear Almighty Allah I am not from India, that way I would be calling "PATHAN" rather than Pashtun. I think you like indian Pathan who have lost their culture, language and land, that's why you are thrusting Indian Pathans as Pashtuns like your great Dilip Kumar? Take care Nisar Qandhari! Haider 13:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Demographics mistakes

I looked at some of the demographics figures and they do not make any sense. The figures denote non-Pashto-speakers in India and Bangladesh (I've only found references to a small refugee group of between 40 and 60,000 living in India and nothing for Bangladesh) as the reference claims that they speak Urdu. Ethnologue, at least, claims to count only language demographic figures. These inflated numbers seem out of place and are another reason why this article has declined in quality since I nominated it for Featured Article status. We need to keep in mind that we cannot simply insert whatever we feel like and must take not of professional encyclopedias and how they approach this and other topics. Regardless, the demographics information will have to be changed.Tombseye 06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, thanks for bringing this up. I'm not tto sure about the populations of Pashtuns in other countries but as for India, the currents source states 776,000 Pashto-speaking Pashtuns out of 11,703,000 total. Could you please give the source that discusses the refugees? I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked up these figures to verify them and found that the Joshua Project was quoting Ethnologue which does not make the claim that there are over 700,000 Pashto speakers in India and doesn't mention Bangladesh or Nepal (?!) at all. The figures for the UAE are also strange as I only found that there are 126,000 from Ethnologue. The Joshua Project seems very unreliable and lumps the Pashtuns with Pathans in India for some reason, which is beyond the scope of this article. I have in the past suggested that an article could be written about Pathans in India as well as a Hindkowan article so as to differentiate between Pashto-speaking Pashtuns and Pathans. At any rate, these figures seem very confusing and unreliable. The figures for India I found came from articles like this. The low end was 13,000 as of 2001 according to this article. Of these apparently a large percentage may not be Pashtuns as 8,500 or so are Sikhs and Hindus whose first language tends to be a Punjabi variant followed by their proficiency in local Dari and Pashto: refugees. I have found nothing on 700,000 Pashto-speakers in India, but lots on Urdu speaking Pathans. There is no historic Pashto-speaking region in India and as such most Pashtuns who went there were no doubt part of Islamic armies and thus lost their language long ago as they assimilated with local Muslims. There is no Indian census and nothing regarding Bangladesh either as Pashtuns living there seems as plausible as Burma or Indonesia as these areas are remote and not economically viable to move to and there is again no real historic Pashto-speaking presence. Much of the demographics section is thus going to have to be scaled down to more plausible figures as it is not easy to find numbers on Pashtuns in the US either (figures tend to include Tajiks who are the larger immigrant group in the US) or Britain etc. Fixing this article is full-time job that I'm not up to and I was disappointed to see it lose featured article status, but not surprised given the mess it became after I was done with it. Tombseye 07:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know from where these figures came in!! Believe me Indian Pathans can just say "Khochey or Mara" of Pashto that's all, there should be another article for PATHANS of Idian and around. Haider 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes in Sports section because the game is still being played in the western skirts of the Hazara division amgonst swatis and yousafzais. Haider 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. I have updated the information a bit, but will have to add more later. I know there are smaller groups of Pashtuns in Central Asia, Russia, etc. but can't find any reliable stats on their numbers. Nor is there any indication of a large Pashto-speaking group in India as of this time other than the Afghan refugees. If anyone has any other data it would be appreciated. Thanks. Tombseye 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work Tom. I have just removed Batagram from the putitive ancestory, while the above mentioned district is above 95% of Pashto speaking clans, covering some eastern slopes of the Black Mountain and Mountains of Allai. Haider 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, I don't mean to be a stumbling block, but your sources of Pashto speakers in India only seems to consider refugees, not a native population. Before the partition of India, it wasn't uncommon for people to travel throughout the country and settle down in new places. In the past, the Rohilkhand region in India was ruled and populated by ethnic Pashtuns (who spoke Pashto). The source I provided (Pushtan, Southern of India) dealt with the entire Pashto-speaking population in India, not just refugees. Your reply would be appreciated. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know of the source. I'm actually the one who added references to the Joshua Project in this article and others before I realized its inconsistencies. As for Pashtuns travelling around, yes many do, but there is a strong distinction between Pashtuns who still speak Pashto and those who no longer do and were always outnumbered by local Muslim inhabitants in India with whom they intermarried. The Rohilkhand is just such an example and no doubt many Pathans there are their partial descendents (Pashtun males moved around moreso than entire families), but today speak Urdu not Pashto. This falls under putative ancestry. There is thus no large Pashto-speaking population, just a history of Pashtun settlement in parts of India, which predictably decreases the further away from Pashtunistan we get. What's more the Indian census has nothing on Pashto-speakers and nor does Ethnologue, which Joshua Project claims as one of its sources. In essence, we have no real evidence of Pashto speakers in India at all other than the refugees. Pashtuns do move around, but not in ways like that of other groups. I suspect that many of the people who moved to India during the British era were Hindkowans (since they are a cultural overlapping group between Pashtuns and Punjabis) as seems to be the case with many well known Pathans in India thus far. Pashtun males tend to move for work and then return to Pashtunistan in modern times so I'm not sure how large a Pashtun migration would have taken place during the short British occupation (we're talking 50 years at the most since the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war). Islamic ghazis on the other hand would have gained much through conquest and would probably see no reason to leave India historically and thus many Pashtun males no doubt remained and became part of the local population, but clearly lost their language as they mixed with the locals. The Joshua Project figures seem unreliable as they do not explain who these Pashto-speakers are and where they live for that matter. For example, 113,000 non-refugee Pashtuns live in Iranian Khorasan centered around Nishapur right next to Afghanistan (no doubt due to the close proximity of other Pashtuns in Herat etc.). The Pashtun population though has no continuity with Indian geography as the British moved into the areas populated by the Pashtuns late after separating it from Afghanistan and so mass movement appears unlikely. Thus, we have no evidence of a sizeable Pashto-speaking population in India, whereas we do have evidence of a Pashtun legacy amongst India's Muslim population. Again, for the purposes of this article, which I worked to make into a featured article and has since declined in quality and verifiability, Pathans can't be counted as Pashtuns as that is beyond the scope of this article and does not correspond to usage in Encyclopedias such as Britannica or Americana which do not note any sizeable Pashtun prescence in India. Tombseye 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I'm thinking of starting a Hindkowan article and came across this information about Dilip Kumar. According to this link he is a Hindkowan so we can't include him in the article either unfortunately. Tombseye 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This site also refers to him and Shah Rukh Khan as a Hindkowan. I would strongly support you in the creation of a Hindkowan article. Regarding the demographics section, I gave a range as you did with the Iranian Pashtun popoulation since we have various sources. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anupam, your source says, "approximately 60,000 Afghans live in India". I couldn't find any reference to the word "Pashtun" or "Pathan" in the text...are you sure the article is about Pashtuns? Khoikhoi 06:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's the problem. of those afghans we know that 9,500 or so are Afghan Sikhs and Hindus and who knows how many Tajiks and others. Regardless there aren't many reliable figures to quantify the Pashtuns in India really. Tombseye 06:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and something else here. It appears Mohammad Yunus is from Abbottabad which is the only Hindko-majority district in the NWFP (94% apparently) and so this appears to follow the trend we've seen with Hindkowans moving about, while ethnic Pashtuns remain where they are. At any rate, we now have a problem with Mr. Yunus as he may not be an ethnic Pashtun but a Hindkowan. Well at the very least the Hindkowan article won't be lacking in notable people I guess. Tombseye 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't provide the source - Tombseye did. Maybe the question should be directed towards him. At any rate, does the Joshua Project source which quotes 776,000 Pashto speaking Pashtuns meet WP:RS? If so than the range could encmpass 13,000-776,000. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I did indeed provide that source and have since then realized that it is also an ambiguous figure. If we extract 9,500 Sikhs and Hindus and then figure that many of the remainder would also be Tajiks and others, we still are left with 13,000 to some larger number that can't be quantified at this time. The Joshua Project source turns out to be completely unreliable as it notes as one of ITS own sources as Ethnologue which has nothing on 776,000 Pashtuns in India, which is a large figure, and yet gives no indication as to where this figure comes from. That's why I took out the Joshua Project figures as they seem like arbitrary numbers rather than based upon census data of some sort. There is nothing on such a large Pashtun presence in India in any encyclopedia or articles I've read (and I've looked at plenty on the Pashtuns). At this time, I don't see how we can give a range other than the 13,000 until we have something more substantive. Tombseye 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's where some confusion may originate from. "Pathan" does not refer to Indian Pashtun descendants but is actually a traditional Hindi/Urdu pronunciation of the word "Pashtun". The Pashtuns of Afghanistan were always known in the rest of South Asia as "Pathans". Prior to Partition, the peoples of the NWFP and northern Balochistan were labeled in the census I think as "Pathans" or "Pashtun" and were included in the Indian demographic. ( I think such large estimates of "Pashtuns" in India come in part from references to old imperial censuses that included the NWFP and Balochistan populations). After partition, with the NWFP and Balochistan going to Pakistan, the Pashtuns became a non-existant group in India. However, some Indians of Pashtun descent continued the use of the word "Pathan" which is now the term they reserve for themselves while Pashtuns have revived the use of the original terms of "Pashtun" or "Pakhtun" into the Pakistani and Afghani censuses. Also, there are quite a few "Kabulliwallahs" that used to go and live in India often to do local trade and stuff. They are probably what constitute the bulk of the "Pashtuns" in India. Other then that, the Pashtuns are a non-existant group in India. Afghan Historian 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Feroz Khan

Hey Tom! Is it fruitful to hang Feroz Khan as Pashtun actor while once we had some argued even on Imran Khan due to his language and you had prefered Shahid Afridi for his Pashto, nevertheless Imran Khan can chat in Pashto aswell. Should we accept Feroz Khan as Pashtun as mentioned under his photo? Take care! Haider 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Feroz Khan to say myself. He's half Pashtun and I don't know if he can speak Pashto myself. I thought Shahid Afridi was the safest choice just because he is obviously Pashtun and there is no question about it. Overall, so long as there is a direct link I think inclusion of notable Pashtuns is ok regardless of where they are. Hope that answers your question. Tombseye 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Pashtun is ok, but Feroz Khan can't speak Pashto, what we were trying to concenterate only on Pashto speaking people would be consider Pashtuns and that is a fact aswell, nevertheless from anywhere around. Me myself had tried to chat with him in Pashto here in our country (now banned), "no sorry I cant speak Pashto", he replied! By just saying few words in their films like Yara,Mara or Khochey Qurban couldn't proove them Pashtuns. I don't think, even they would'nt consider themsleves as Pashtuns. Take care! Haider 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally am neutral on his inclusion, since he is directly descended from Pashtuns from his father's side without question whereas the other people who claim Pashtun ancestry tend to be from centuries ago which makes it more difficult to assess. We could vote on it, but I personally don't think it's important to keep him or remove him as the pictures of famous people is less important than pictures of regular Pashtuns as can be seen in most reference books. Take care. Tombseye 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not go for the voting on this issue, esp when I know you are neutral on it. I had also been in little contributing with you to make it a featured article, if you remember? And also don't forget, you had worked so hard to glorify this article, so if it is okay with you than it's alright! Take care Tomb. Haider 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, sure no problem Haider. You were very helpful too. Feel free to set-up the voting on this picture whenever you wish to. Tombseye 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

New picture for info-box

File:At a wedding tif.jpg

Elders are important people in the Pashtun society and often make important decisions in the community.

I added this picture at the top of the caption. It's a picture of typical everyday Pashtuns which is good and not a picture of celebrities (which is again a sign of nationalism). Most encyclopedias tend to show pictures of regular people so this picture makes sense in the article. Please people don't remove it without a good explanation. Cheers. Tombseye 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Those in the picture are not proven to be Pashtuns because they are from Kabul. The majority people in Kabul are Tajiks. Also, Tajiks and Pashtuns both wear turbans and they look very identical to one another. The best thing would be to place a picture of Pashtuns from a well known populated Pashtun cities such as Kandahar or Peshawar, where they make up the mojority. I will look around for better images of Pashtuns.--NisarKand 15:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How can we make this article a Featured article again?

I think here we should discuss what we can do to make this article a featured article again. Lets make a list. I will start. Behnam 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove the nationalism. Before one reason why this article was Featured was because this article had no nationalism in it and was totally neutral. Today, it reads more like a nationalistic neutral article. I am partly to blame for that, but I have now recognized it. I think that is one thing we could do to make this article featured again, remove nationalism and make it neutral again. Otherwise, I doubt it will ever become Featured again. Behnam 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who originally nominated to become a featured article and what I did was re-write it and add significantly to it with lots of suggestions etc. For one thing some sections have become too long and mired in unnecessary details (for example no need to explain something that is explained in a link to another article). I will work on this article some more and then nominate it to be a featured article again. I see no reason why it can't be done again as the content is mostly all still here. It's just been messed with and altered badly. I agree that nationalism should play no part here. Tombseye 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious, who removed it from Featured status? Behnam 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pashtun people. Khoikhoi 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Khoikhoi! Behnam 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Also see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pashtun people (the original nomination page). Khoikhoi 03:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys, I've been editing the page quite a bit to shorten it and create some clarity. There was lots of information that was redundant (stating over and over again that Karzai is Popalzai etc. is just not professional) or stating what can be read in other articles (biographies of people). I think we're very close to putting this article back into Featured status. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ciao. Tombseye 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nisarkand, I actually uploaded that picture of Abdul Ahad. You must have deleted it and uploaded your own or something, I don't know what happened there. But that wasn't my point. So nevermind. Behnam 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam, do you have a problem with Abdul Ahad Mohmand? Why you keep removing his image from this article? You removed it from Afghanistan's article about a month back, which I didn't challenge you then, and now you want to remove it from here also. He is the first Pashtun to reach space but you want to hide this fact. I suggest you leave it alone because I will reinsert it everytime I come here. His image has nothing to do with nationalism but simply pride of all the Pashtuns. Chech Israel and see they also have the first Jewish person to go to space in 2002. Plus, I was the one who uploaded this image not you. --NisarKand 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I uploaded it before you did and I placed it in this article. But for some reason you uploaded your won and replaced mine. I'm not sure why. But thats not the point, so nevermind.

File:Mohmand-large.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohmand-large.jpg Behnam 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I replaced yours because the name of your image did not have his full name plus I thought I had a larger sized image but it ended up being the same.--NisarKand 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nisarkand, why would I have a problem with this picture IF I WAS THE ONE WHO PLACED IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Stop throwing around meaningless allegations. Check the date of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohmand-large.jpg and you'll see I uploaded that picture long before you did. And check the history of this article and you'll see that I placed it here long ago! And the reason I removed it from the Afghanistan article is because it had NOTHING to do with Culture section! And I told you that then! So do I have a problem with that picture? If yes as you suggest, then why would I upload and place it here in the first place? I already clearly express my reasoning above, but forget it. Behnam 09:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Nisarkand, on several occations you have accused me of being "anti-Pashtun". I have already answered your allegation that I want to "hide" Mohmand being Pashtun. Now I also want to add that I was the one who also uploaded the Zalmay Khalizad picture and ALSO placed it HERE! Just check the history of this article. So now I'd appreciate if you stop throwing around these accusations whenever you disagree with someone. Behnam 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And now that you showed the Israel article, I think it would be good if you put his picture back into the Afghanistan article. But we should first find an appropriate place to put it. Last time it was in the culture section and thats why I removed it. I think we should place it back now and make a spot for it. Behnam 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to place your ethnic background behind you when editing articles of other ethnics. When you removed his image from Afghanistan's article I didn't challenge you because you were right that it didn't belong in the culture section. Anyway, if you want to remove an image it should be Rahim Shah's, as I know him very well and his culture changed in 2003 to Urdu or Punjabi. He is more famous among those crowds than Pashtuns...not many Pashtuns know him. He is Pashtun I fully agree but his work has nothing to do with Pashtuns. In fact, in one of his 2003 songs, he clearly says "I'm Pakhtun". That still does not mean anything. There are many new Pashtun singers in Pakistan and they are much well known to Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan than this Rahim Shah dude. About the Afghan article, I will later make a section for the image to be there.--NisarKand 10:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nisarkand, here you are starting again with your baseless allegations. Did I not just prove to you that I uploaded and placed BOTH the Mohmand picture and the Khalilzad picture? And my ethnic backround? I am actually part Pashtun myself (my mother's mother), so considering that, you're allegation of me being anti-Pashtun is even more ridiculous. As for Rahim Shah, that is up to you if you want to remove him. You do you have a good point about him so I don't mind if he is removed at all. Behnam 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me find the proper Liscensing for this Important pictre:

I had this picture uploaded on to the Demographics section, but it was removed because at the time I did not know much about licensing and I picked the wrong one. This image does not appear to be copyrighted at all. So there must be a way we can use it. Please help me pick the correct license so that we can use this image. --Behnam 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A good idea will be to make it yourself. I can make it for the article in a couple of days time. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You can also try adding {{reqmap}} to this talk page; not sure if it'll work though. Khoikhoi 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But there is no copyright on this image (as far as I can see on that webpage), so there must be a way we can use it. Right? --Behnam 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unknown copyright status is a good reason for speedy deletion. In this case, however, the contents of the website are © Moesgård Museum. deeptrivia (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for finding out the copyright. I kept looking but couldn't find it. So I guess we'll just have to make our own map, or find another one. Behnam 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's done. deeptrivia (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just wow! That is just such a great work of art! :-D It looks even way better than the original! I think you should get an award for that or some sort of recognition! Thanks alot deeptrivia, you are great! Behnam 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New map has problems

The new map seems to show Pakistan Kashmir in grey for some reason and not Indian Kashmir. It seems odd to even bring that up here, but why the grey for one and not the other and why bring it up at all? Just use the line of control which most encyclopedias do. Tombseye 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Will fix that soon. deeptrivia (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate it. Also, the Line of Control with China needs to be adjusted. Much obliged. Tombseye 18:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Pashtuns are direct descendant from Scythians?

Pashtuns may have some descent from Scythians, but they certainly do not have direct descend from the Scythians. Pashtuns have various ancestries and yes Scythian is one of them, but they are not direct descendants of the Scythians, only some Pashtuns have Scythian ancestry. Because if Pashtuns are from southern/eastern Afghanisan and western Pakistan, and Scythians were from Central Asia, then direct descend is obviously wrong. We should correct that. Also why is there no info here on the possible Semitic ancestry, and also the obvious Indic admixture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.55.10 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, yes we could alter the Scythian link a bit, but I believe that link exists because of teh strong similarities between Scythian and Pashto (which shows similarities with Ossetic as well. As for the Semitic and Indic links they appear to be minor given the genetic tests that show a general (but by no means solid) genetic difference west of the Indus in-comparison to the Indian subcontinent. The Semitic link appears to be more mythological than real as well and is comparable to the Indic link you speak of. the Pashtuns are related to their immediate neighbors and to most of the Iranian peoples in a variety of ways. Thus, the rationale in the article. Tombseye 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also various other East Iranian peoples they descend from, including the Parthians, Bactrians, Sogdians, etc. who all have relative links to the Scythians anyway. Some of the Pashtun ancestry can be traced to the Hepthalites or so called White Huns, whom many now believe to be Iranian anyway. Afghan Historian 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Semitic ancestry is hogwash, though of course Pashtuns cluster with the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasoid type, but then again so do southern Europeans, Indians, Pakistanis, etc. There are groups such as the Hindkowans who have partial Indian ancestry due to mixing with Punjabis, but apart from them, (and even they arent considered full Pashtun), there is no Indic ancestry among the Pashtuns specifically. Afghan Historian 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This pashtun pseudo pride makes me laugh. As far as the genetic tests on pakistani population are concerned showed that the pashtuns/pakhtuns of pakistan are paternally(father side) are very closely related to their immediate neighbours in pakistan which include punjabi, balochi, sindis and kashmiris from the valley since all of them have not only high frequency of R1a1 Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup but also have uniform rates of R2 Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. R1a1 haplogroup rates for pashtuns were found 45% , for punjabis 50%, balochis 42% ,for sindis 49% and for kashmiris 58%. R1a1 haplogroup is spread also in high rates in India, Russia, Ukrain, Poland, and other slavic speaking countries whose languages are very closely related to ancient sanskrit. Thus R1a1 haplogroup can be associated with ancient indo-iranians (also known as Aryans in sanskrit and avestan texts) whose languages we are speaking today. The R2 haplogroup is specific to pakistani and indian populations and its small rates are also found in the caucacus countries between caspian and black sees.

Original Research

I can't help noticing that a lot of the discussion on this page is original research and unsourced. I hope that this is not true for the article, although I came here because of references to Shah Rukh Khan. WP:NOR may be of help. Ekantik ^talk 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Refs

This article should probably use the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates for references. I'll try to update some of them. Khoikhoi 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I already started with that, but not using the templates you listed! Oh man. It takes forever as is. I was just making them consistent and similar to the Azeris, but man. Tombseye 08:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone may be interested in this citable reference which argues for Jewish origin based on numerous observable customs. To say the matter of origins is settled by any single type of evidence makes no sense when they are so contradictory. I am not advocating a position, only making available an "off the beaten track" resource. On the web I could find it only in an odd location, http://www.moshiach.com/features/tribes/pakistan.php but they seem to be the only folks who have translated the original Japanese into English.Leo Schlosberg 04:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

PLZ don´t use pictures of other sites where some of this pictures are showing as well under the title Tajik family!! otherwise we will close the room. Thanks

Very nice pictures indeed. But, beside the boy with the Pashtun traditional hat, how do you know their ethnicity is Pashtun? Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Tajiks of Afghanistan can often look the same. Especially since these pictures are from Kabul where Tajiks are the largest group and Pashtuns are a minority there (2nd largest group). If they were from a largely Pashtun area like Khowst or Kandahar then we could say they are most likely Pashtun anyway. But in this case, whats there to suggest that (besides the boy with the traditional Pashtun hat) they are Pashtuns? Is there by chance a description from the source? Behnam 07:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, for the first image click here, and scroll down to the bottom. For the others, click here, and then on the right bar enter the word "Pashtun" in the "Search Images" field. You'll see the three others there, all you have to do is click on them and they will pop-up, giving the description. Khoikhoi 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see, thanks. But from my personal experience, seeing thousands and thousands of faces, I highly doubt the two on the left are Pashtun. How did the US military determine their ethnicity? Did they actually ask them? Or did they just assume that these were Pashtuns? I personally think the latter was the case. In a place like Kabul you can't just guess people's ethnicity without asking, unless they were signature clothing (like that hat or those turbans). Especially with the family picture. But I guess since in Wiki its the rule where personal knowledge is not taken over a source, they cannot be removed, unless another reliable picture is found. Behnam 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but the family look Pashtun to me. I saw lots of people like them in Peshawar and I knew a family that was very similar to them back in California (they were Afghan refugees and lived in Alameda and some of them still might be there). 5 brothers and 2 sisters. How do you tell faces apart in Afghanistan? Except for the Hazara (and even with them it varies) I'm not sure there are any huge differences between the various groups. Tombseye 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Typical Sindhi hat is on that boy. I don't know who else(Group) worn such caps in Kabul, or that must be some of his relatives in Sindh etc would have sent that traditional stuff. A Pashtun boy would looks more glorious in his own traditional dress rather than others esp when we have been buzy to find out some good images regarding Pashtuns. That boy is not a celebrity like Ghulam Ishaq Khan or others, easy to recognise whatever is on, but here boy is just a common passerby so how can we(a reader, newcomer, contributor etc) recognize him as Pashtun? Haider 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Haider. The problem is that we are having copyright problem with the pictures. We can't use Ishaq Khan UNLESS you or someone else can find pictures that we can use without violating copyright laws. Also, you make a good point about the boy as he is wearing a Sindhi cap which is not common in Afghanistan and is not a typically Pashtun hat. I like the picture just because it's a typical Pashtun (which is good for an article like this), but I wanted a group picture at the top. I hope we can find one to use sometime. Tombseye 01:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that hat is VERY common in Southern and Eastern parts of Afghanistan. Epsecially Kandahar, Khowst, and Helmand and those areas. Though it might originally be a Sindhi hat that Pashtuns of that region adopted somehow. Behnam 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And yeah Tombseye is right. They have really gotten strict on the image liscenses. They won't even accept Creative Commons Lisecence without permission for Comercial use. That's just ridiciouls. I had several really good images deleted because of that. They were CC2.0, but no Commercial use. And also you if you use CC images they have to allow Derivate Works also. So now its alot harder finding images. They have also gotten strict on fair use. Oh well, we'll have to live with it. Behnam 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tomb, if copyright (which is without any doubt a geniune one) is the case then I should keep myself buzy to find out right one aswell. I still can remember an image in which some Pashtun boys from Kohistan were on their way to school, desperate to see that one. Take care. Haider 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you guys or anyone can find pictures without copyright problems, by all means let me or Khoikhoi know. The Kohistani boys picture was good, but there was no ID as to whether they were Pashtuns or not, but they might have been. Tombseye 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show us which Kohistani picture you're talking about? Behnam 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost a year gone when an image of Pashtuns from Kohistan was there, the beauty of that image was Pashtun kids were going to school, otherwise they usually affixed even children with AK-47!! Tomb, what is the criteria to confirm wether they are pashtuns or not, certainly not military forces deployed? Manana and Take care. Haider 09:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Haider, is this the image you're talking about? Khoikhoi 09:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I couldn't find that one but great to see Pashtun children buying sweets at a shop(looks like), believe me that will work rather than that sindhi hat. Good work. Take care! Haider 10:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there were copyright problems with that picture too AND the caption reads that they are Kohistani and Pashtun children and is not clear if they are simply Pashtun Kohistanis or Kohistani and Pashtun kids. If the copyright issues could be resolved I have no problem with a lot of pictures. I like the Pashtun boy we have at the top, but not in the place as a group picture would be better to signify the Pashtuns as a whole (as we used in Azeris. Tombseye 17:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tombseye, Copyright problems are much enough to prevent us to add that image, that's all. Haider 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there weren't any objections from anybody about removing the image of the (allegedly) Pashtun boy. The main issue was about the family. Did something change? Khoikhoi 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I have asked for removing the image just for it's technical reason, for any pashtun celeb like Imran Khan etc, it's easy to be recognized nevertheless if they are wearing jeans or shalwar suit but how could we recongnized a boy, a common passerby with sindhi hat on him, for any wikipedians the first impression would go straight for a sindhi boy on Pashtun page. If we don't have any suitable image available right now due to copyright, we must wait for a while, it dosn't mean to affix unsuitable photos. I would appreciate you always for your hard work regarding images. Manana and Take care. Haider 09:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that boy doesn't even look very Pashtun. It's not 100% known if he is Pashtun, and regardless on Wikipedia we're supposed to put forward the best informative material out there and prevent misconceptions. Giving people the wrong impression on Pashtuns won't help anyone. The pictures with Ahmad Shah Durrani and other Pashtuns in the past were better.

That is NOT a Sindhi boy! There are no Sindhis in Afghanistan, and Kabul of all places. That hat is very commonly worn by Pashtun young boys, even older men wear them. If you are from Afghanistan you should know that. It is especially worn by Pashtun boys (and sometimes grown men) in Helmand and Kandahar. Behnam 15:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very important question, just tell me honestly, is that a traditional/cultural Pashtuns cap, despite if that worn esp by children? I have never seen any such cap in NWFP even FATA and PATA on pashtuns heads. Thanks. Haider 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that it is not worn by Pakistani Pashtuns in NWFP. But in Helmand, Kandahar, and sometimes Quetta it is very common. Especially in Kandahar and Helmand, almost all young boys wear it and adults often wear it too. Just take a look at some casual videos or pictures from Kandahar and Helmand. The boy in this pictures is most likely a Hotaki Pashtun from Kandahar. How do I know that? I have a friend that looks just like him, except older. Behnam 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get my answer, which was very simple like, is that Pashtuns traditional/cultural cap or not? You know very well that what should we accepted as our cultural dress from toe to head (very famous). Kindly don't take caps from other non-pashtuns, while we have already a rich history regarding caps aswell. If pashtun Hotaki boy had his own cultural cap then that would have been a great "image" otherwise this is like a sindhi boy on pashtun page. Thanks. Haider 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A freind of mine from Balochistan is from Achakzai tribe, usually he wore such caps but believe me, he has never accepted that "styled" cap as Pashtuns cap but just for the change of style thats all. Take care Haider 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll delete the image as there appears to be some issue with its origins. Having personally been to Peshawar and other Pashtun areas I didn't see many locals wearing this cap, but saw plenty of Sindhis wearing them in Karachi so obviously it's peculiar to that area. Tombseye 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This hat has its origins in Sindh, but is VERY commonly worn in Kandahar, Helman and sometimes Oruzgan. There are no Sindhis in Kabul. The boy is not Sindhi. He can only be Pashtun. Behnam 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand here. You objected to the family because it was misleading (I'm still not sure why), but don't think it's misleading for a boy to wear a Sindhi cap? Shouldn't we either use both pictures or neither since they are both ambiguous and from the same source? Tombseye 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

There must be more categories that apply to this article: can someone pls sort through categories and get necessary cats added? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Khoikhoi put all of the relevant categories in the Pashtun category thus eliminating the need to insert stuff into what was a burgeoning section. Tombseye 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I don't see the information with native spellings. It should not be removed from the article completely, although I strongly suggest it be removed from FAs for readability. However, other editors have made arguments for providing this information in Wikipedia articles, as it makes it easier for users who are not fluent in another language to search for the information in its native tongue, and generally enhances the ability of other editors to verify information. I don't think this goes against particular arguments for "Wikipedia is not for your convenience," as other encyclopedias do this in various ways. It simply shouldn't be done in a way that makes the introductory sentence unreadable. Can it be added to the top of the infobox, or somewhere else? Is it already somewhere else? KP Botany 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've moved the native spellings down to the footnotes. Khoikhoi 07:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems to handle the issue well, it's where folks looking for the information might seek it in the first place. KP Botany 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Iranian plateau

This reference is to "an informal online resource for summit-focused hikers, climbers, and mountain lovers" not a geological site, and as such is problematic when used as a reference to define a geological area, which is what the article on the Iranian plateau is about, as geologists define areas by their geological history. I did just change the Iranian plateau article, as it had many problems, starting with its opening sentence that "The Iranian plateau is a major geologic formation" as it is not a geological formation but rather techtonostrigraphic terranes, which are probably made up of geological formations or lithostratigraphic sections. Even the definition of the plateau given in the article doesn't agree with the image at peekbaggers, because the definition includes Tajikistan, while the map at peekbaggers does not. Peekbaggers's map might be found elsewhere on a geological site that includes the Main Zagros Thrust and Makran tranfer zone. I don't know, without extensive research, whether or not the Iranian plateau is today considered to be the region north of both of these or only the region north of the MZT, west of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has an extensive history of research in the geological sciences, so maybe there's an Iranian Wikipedia editor who can help with this--you might start by looking up Iranian plateau and Zagros thrust on the Iranian wikipedia to find some help. But, the peekbaggers' map cannot be used as a reference to define a geological region, when the site itself proclaims it is not intended as such. KP Botany 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I added two references, one from Britannica and one from the University of Texas that clarify the matter. Hope that helps. Tombseye 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Images -- for what it's worth.

I asked my cousin, an ethnographer (she's Pashtun, and highly respected in all Afghan ethnic communities in the US and in Afghanistan, Germany and England), about the one image of the Pashtun family, she said, "yes, they are Pashtuns." I will ask her and other family about the other images, next time I go to dinner, printing out the photos--making sure they are looked at by a variety of Pashtuns and other Afghans. I don't agree with Wikipedia's general policy on images, as it is rather slack on original research--whether or not any of us can look at any pictures and say they are Pashtun. However, if an image is to be used from the Air Force pictures, it should be the most culturally relevant one, meaning, a picture of a Pashtun family. If there are reasons for using pictures of solitary Pashtuns rather than an image of a Pashtun family, please present them, as I would adore an excuse for 30 5 seconds of solitude the next time I spend a week or two with Pashtuns. KP Botany 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree a nice culturally one is deff appropriate. Lakers 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pathans partly descended from Greeks Proof

Some new Genetic studies have found Pathans are descended from Ancient Greeks Links-

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C02%5C09%5Cstory_9-2-2007_pg12_8

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Pakistan+%26+Sub-Continent&month=February2007&file=World_News20070210221759.xml

Please add this to article

Shtup 17:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanoli Pashtuns?

I know this issue has been discussed before, but does any one know if they are a branch of the Yusufzai? A Tanoli user claims to be Barlas Mughal and then a Pashtun the next day. I need to try and sort this mess out!--Alcides 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tanolis do not belong to yousafzais tribal group, but it dosn't mean, that they are not Pashtun tribe, they have their language Pashto in the western outskirts of Hazara Division and Mardan, another singnificant point about them is strictness on Pashtunwali. Yes they are Pashtuns by their heritage, culture and traditions. Take care. Haider 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We have already been discussing this issue for months and if you are interested to view those debates, you will be highly appreciated to visit Talk Pashtun Archives. Thanks. Haider 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Pakistan administered Kashmir

The reference to Pakistan administered Kashmir is given as Azad Kashmir. For the information of all the editors, Azad Kashmir is a term given by Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir given by India. the world in general knows the area occupied by Kashmir as "Pakistan Administered Kashmir". Hence, I undoing the reverts done by another editor. Kindly keep the content neutral. the term "Azad Kashmir" is unknown and not recogised by the world outside Pakistan. (rams81 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Azad Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir are not the same things, however. According to the article, Pakistan-administered Kashmir includes not only Azad Kashmir, but also the Northern Areas, in addition to Raskam and the Shaksgam Valley. Khoikhoi 05:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But, the article anyway mentions Northern Areas. If this article is to serve any purpose for world oustide the South Asia, we need to mention the terms world is familiar with. I think you (Khoikhoi) a knowledgeble person w.r.t to the geography of the region. So, you may modify it such that it covers the regions appropriately (rams81 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Alright, I'll ask another user, Tombseye, to give his opinion on the matter. I figured that Azad Kashmir is better because it is the official term for the region. But I will look more into the matter, and get back to you. Regards, Khoikhoi 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I removed the reference of Northern Areas, since as said by you Northern Areas is part of Azad KAshmir / Pakistan administered Kashmir. So, the article now just states Pakistan Administered Kashmir. Regarding the offical status of name Azad Kashmir, it is recognised only in Pakistan. Anyway let us see the opinion of the user Tombseye(rams81 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually, reference books call the area the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir so that's how we have to keep it. See here on Britannica. As far as I know the world just views the line of control as "recognized" while India and Pakistan make counter claims which aren't what we're dealing with here. Tombseye 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, note CIA factbook which simply refers to the areas. Otherwise, we have to re-write the Jammu and Kashmir article as Indian-administered Kashmir which is probably not what people want to see. Hope this clears things up. Tombseye 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir is the official name of the region, which is the safest thing to use in the article. deeptrivia (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Aryan ancestory?

U know I went to the history section and there is no mention how the ancestors of the Pashtuns are Aryan people...I mean it says that they were invaded by Aryans which is a joke because they are also of Aryan heritage....BEing Pashtun is not a race...Its an ethnic group...and most of the Ethnic groups (Balochis, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Rajasthanis, etc etc all come from Aryan heritage. 71.119.248.15 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you cite Reliable sources we can gladly add information, cheers. Lakers 01:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always been told that the Pashtuns are one of the non-Aryan races of the subcontinent. I have never heard them described as descendants of Aryans. Now, most of India was conquered by the Aryans but I doubt there conquests reached as far north as the Pashtun regions. Especially Afghanistan. But don't quote me on that last part. TaylorSAllen 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pashtuns aren't Indian, but part of the Iranian peoples and thus there is a distinction here. They are partial descendents of the Aryans though yes. Tombseye 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But so many authors have been indicating many larger Pashtun tribes of Indian origin, anyways all of them were Aryans, if we take it as one theory of origin. Haider 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No Tombseye, Pashtuns are not of "partial" Aryan descent. They are "HEAVILY" if not "COMPLETELY" of Aryan descent. Afghan Historian 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Aryan descent is itself next to impossible to define. In fact, if the Aryans came from the Ukraine or Central Asia, the genetic linkages would reveal direct relations of that sort whereas areas where Aryan languages are spoken widely vary. Thus, there is no discernable way to determine "Aryan" descent at all. If this were possible, we would see for example Indo-Aryans being genetically and phenotypically identical to, say Ossetians or even some Ukrainians. Pashtuns ARE partial descendents who mixed with local groups and invaders over time, but more than likely the local pagan groups around them who populated the areas from Gilgit to Central Iran as well as large swathes of southern Central Asia are the people the Pashtuns are closest to. Attempting to define these people as heavily or completely of Aryan descent is simply neither feasible or possible to quantify since all that is known is that this was a branch of the Indo-Europeans who bequethed their languages upon various populations. Unfortunately, European imperialism, specifically that of the British, wrongly attributed racial attributes to the Aryans, which some interpret as linked to language as well (thus if you speak an Aryan language you are an "Aryan"). the Aryans are long since gone and attempting a modern linkage to them by claiming descent solely or primarily from them is simply not tenable. Who they were is largely guesswork. The Pashtuns are simply put an Iranian people through their language and degree of greatest similarities that link them to the other Iranians and Burosho etc. The best guesswork thus means that they are more than likely as i said partial descendents of the Aryans and this varies from the weakest linkages further east to the more likely descent amongst the Ossetians who live the closest to where the Aryans probably originated. Tombseye 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

that definition of aryan is "white man's burden" era european trash.

Vandalism

The caption on one of the pictures reads "You're lying if you say you wouldn't hit it." I don't know how to revert it or else I would. RoyRedersn17 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already been reverted, and the vandal has been given a block. Don't know the length. And for the record, I sure hope he wasn't referring to me when he said what he said. Really I wonder how these kind of people think that their edits will stay up for longer than a few minutes, as most of them get reverted before then. --LuigiManiac 02:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

is there reaon for quoting vandalism verbatim on the talk page? It makes the offending content stay on wikipedia longer, if not indefinitely. I want to remove your above comments. --345Kai 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So that the above does not look weird to anyone else, I quoted vandalism and after reading the comment directly above me, realized I shouldn't have quoted it. I took it out, so that the only remaining trace of it is in the page history. --LuigiManiac 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

13,000 is the figure of Afghan refugees in India; the actual number of people in India of Pashtun lineage goes much higher. Please correct the figure. --Marqus 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenu?

Xenu has something to do with the Pashtuns?

No, but what do this Pathans have to do with us? WHERE IS CHAKAKHAN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.243.218.198 (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Pashtun girl photo

Isn't that a copyrighted photo from the National Geographic? [2]

I'm not sure, but we may have to remove it. Please check it. ManosGR 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it - it was licensed only as fair use, that means it can only appear in the article about the magazine that publeshed it not in articles about the persons in the picture.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Figures may be wrong

The figures for the population of Pashtuns in various countries might be wrong. According to the source [3], it mentions Afghan refugees in India=13000, not Pashtuns in India = 13,000. Also Pathans in India were reknowned for being traders (the story of the Kabuliwala), and money-lenders in Mumbai. 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

1. not all Afghans are Pasthuns. So, not all of those 13,000 Afghans are Pasthuns.
2. to say that those refugess are the only Pasthun speakers in India beats common-sense.
3. just 13,000 Pasthuns in India?! I need a better source for that!

--Incman|वार्ता 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There aren't many Pashtuns in India. The main group are Pathans who claim Pashtun descent, which is a distinction here. They have to be Pashto speakers to be Pashtuns. Tombseye 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

They were Pashtuns, but now they have forgotten their language, culture and heritage, I don't think, pashtuns in india are more than mentioned figures. Thanks. Haider 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no Pashtuns/Pakhtuns in India! this just another attempt by complexed Indians/Indian Muslims to show that they are what everyone else is because they dont want to be simply Indian. I pity them for this inherent complex but why this distortion of fact has been allowed on this page is truly puzzling and hurtful. The so called 'Pathans' in India are those Indians who were converted over to Islam and adopted the title 'Khan' or the surname of the ruler of their regions who were often Afghan/Pushtuns. Furthermore in India the Muslims have slowly reverted to their previous customs which involve the caste system and as such, many have simply concocted what are perceived as being 'better' lineages as Indians inherently admire anything foreign and use these concocted lineages as attempts to move into higher social spheres and improve their class distinction; furthermore, such stories help them improve their credentials in their respective communities as well in marriage alliances. i personally have been to India 3 times and have yet to see any Pushtun there! Furthermore, it is stated that 20% of the Urdu Mohajir community of Pakistan claim partial pushtun ancestry which I also believe involves the same concept of improving one's social standing seen in India as these Mohajir are originally from there. Neither do they have any of the phenotypical, cultural, linguistic traits or demeaner of Pashtuns; they're attempts to blur the lines of their lineage in Pakistan and to some extent in Afghanistan have for the most part failed as the presence of genuine Pashtuns who have no affinity with them immediately disproves any partial link with them. I ask that this supposed presence of Pushtuns in India and lineage of Pathans be clearified and/or removed.

Pretty Lady

Where is the image of the pretty lady in the article, the one which is on the Main Page?--Scheibenzahl 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just inserted it in the section about the ethnic deifnition fo Pashtun instead of a non-licensed image of Sharbat Gula. Thanks for noticing. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing

Before you add images to this article please read the guidelines for Fair Use. It specifically says that you cannot use a magazine cover in contexts related to the image on the cover but only in contexts dealing with the publicatio of the image. Please don't include any more magazine covers in the article unless a fair use rationale can be substantiated.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan (Badsha Khan)

Why is there no mention of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan the great non-violant leader of Khudai Khidmadgar? He is a Pashtun. "Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Pashto/Arabic: خان عبد الغفار خان) (b. at Hashtnagar in Utmanzai, Peshawar, North-West Frontier Province, British India, c. 1890; d. in Peshawar, NWFP, Pakistan, 20 January 1988) was a Pashtun (Afghan) political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule during the final years of the Imperial rule in the Indian sub-continent. He was a lifelong pacifist and a devout Muslim. He was known as Badshah Khan (sometimes written as Bacha Khan), the King of Chiefs, and Frontier Gandhi."

Becaus this is not a list of famous Pashtuns . his article can be found here: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then what Mr Hamid Karzai is doing there, nevertheless this is not the famous Pashtuns list! His article can be found here: Hamid Karzai. Haider 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently an editor chose to include him as an example of a famous pashtun. I was merely implying that there is no reason that every famoues pashtun should be includd in the article. If you can see a way to include im in the article without disrupting its current flow please go ahead. If you see the necessityof including him then it is your own responasbility to do it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first reply was not appropriate, but now I think it does make some sense that Mr Hamid Karzai has been choosen as famous pashtun, just for an example, otherwise Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is far famous for his glorious credentials for pashtuns, as compare to Mr karzai. It would be more suitable to affix Khan Sahab image rather than some so-called famous. Thanks. Haider 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that I meant no offense by any of my comments - but I can also say that not being a contributor to the article I knew who Karzai was and that he was a pashtun before reading the article. Badshah Khan I never heard of before you mentione him here. I do think that at least in the western part of the world more people have heard of Karzai than badshah Khan - this of course does not mean that he is more notable as a pashtun than Khan though. As I said - I canot put the material in the article since I don't know anything about it - you have the knwoledge and so the responsability of putting it in there.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If Badshah Khan is not famous to western world as compare to "Karzai" than khan sahab's image should have affixed much earlier, let the western world know about his credibilities and his efforts to unite the pashtuns, and, as I said earlier, his credentials were glorious for pashtuns and remind you, this is a Pashtun article, and a famous amongst pashtuns would make it more remarkable. Thanks. Haider 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate place in which to indicate the notability of Badshah Khan is in his own article. The Pashtun article is the place to indicate the notability of the Pashtun people, and this is best served by providing an example which is already familiar and well regarded to the greater readership. Those who are interested will look further into Pashtun related subjects, where they may find Badshah Khan and learn of his notability. LessHeard vanU 15:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to say that Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is more famous than Mr Karzai amongst Pashtuns and in geoghrapically related region aswell, while when we are working on an article about Pashtuns, he should be highlighted, because his efforts have made him a historical man, and also spent so many years of his life behind the bars, so if some one who has some know how about pashtuns, will love to see his image on main article rather than Mr Karazai, who has no credibility and historical back ground by any means. As far as my opinion concern Mr Karzai don't deserve any article. Haider 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Descended from Alexander

I have seen some where in books that Afridis are descended from Alexander (as a view/opinion) but no where seen Sadozais as from the same point of view, so Sadozais and Khattaks should be removed, while the ref no 36's details dosn't mention shown tribes also. For contributors benefits I will copy that paragraph below. Thanks. Haider 10:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(Other Pashtun tribes claim descent from Arabs, including some even claiming to be descendants of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (popularly referred to as sayyids).[14] Some groups from Peshawar and Kandahar (such as the Afridis, Khattaks and Sadozais) also claim to be descended from Alexander the Great's Greeks.[36]) Haider 10:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this article based on claims, nevertheless I have not seen any Afridi even, claiming descended from Alexander. Haider 10:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadozai has just been removed from the Alexander's ancestory. I am sure it's okay with every one. Rest of the two tribes have never claim, descended from that line also, yes it is a view from few authors/historians esp for Afridis, while not even a single tribesman would know about Alexander as his ancestor. Thanks. Haider 09:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be checked to ensure such mistakes don't occur. Alexander's dynasty was completely counted and known during his time by so many of his literists and people. It can't physically be possible that he had a dynasty left in Afghanistan and that wasn't recorded anywhere by the ancients? This isn't the first time I have raed this for Pashtuns, I have even read that the Gakhar tribe at one point even claimed this too. It appears a cultural thing....--Alcides 16:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Vida Samadzai

I can't believe that someone put that crap on this article. This article has gone down the drain and is becoming garbage with idiots editing it and posting such garbage. Miss Afghanistan contest is not condoned by Afghanistan, so why the heck is it even mentioend. Plus how is Samadzai a Pashtun? She is a Parsiban. Many blood Pashtuns are Parsiban who have nothing to do with Pashtuns or Pashto at all. Please dont post your perversions here on this article. Wiki should have some credibility and block idiots from adding garbage like that. This is just one woman out of million. Why not just go find a stripper who might be Pashtun by decent and add her picture? This woman used the flight of the Afghan woman for her own benefit and was nothing but a political tool. The government and the women of Afghanistan denounecd here. She doesn't belong on this article period. CUT THE BS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.129.54 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

The image of Vida Samadzai has been removed. But it was not because of any of the nonsense reasons you just provided. For future discussions please read the rules on Wiki etiquette. The image was only removed due to licensing reasons. --Behnam 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Behnam da parsiban? I worked contributed to this article a long time back however ever since some parsiban spe has come over with their ahmed shah masoodov love this article has turned into nothing but a mouth piece of kabuli-ghul-hole. We all know how kabuli-ghul-hole like some of these writers and people like vida are treated by Pashtuns not only from the east but also in the south/west of Afghanistan. This article smells like crap with only parsibanan and kabuli faces all over yet not a single image of Ghani Khan, Bacha Khan, Wali Khan people who really did give a damn about Pashtun and Pashto rather then some ex-uncoal employess and half tajiki singers. What a disgusting sight of bais. WIKI pedia is nothing more then a view point of pesudeo scholars with political and personal agendas so dont give me crap about nonsense. WIKI is sued a dozen times and has apologized a dozen times even a kid as 12 year old can create write crap here. So shove your rules where they belong this is not but a OPEN BLOG for millions of web surfers, period! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.129.54 (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I believe mentioning her in the article is not out of line and she does speak Pashto so I'm not sure how this makes her a "Parsiban". She is well known regardless. We can't simply mention people and things about Pashtuns that please everyone. Rather, it should be informative as she is a well known figure like Abdul Ahad Mohmand. Most Afghan Pashtuns are multilingual so I'm not sure how this disqualifies her anyway. We need to keep an open mind with these things. If she is hated as you say, all the more reason to mention her. Tombseye 13:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

She speaks Pashto? says who? I live in California and know people that know her. She doesnt speak Pashto she is Kabuli Parsibana! Stop making stuff up white man! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.129.54 (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Mentioning her in the article is okay, but that picture is not acceptable. Hopefully it was not removed just because of a technicality. IP198 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Farhad Darya is a Persian- a Tajik

lol you loser, farhad darya is half persian and half pakhtun. please tell me some pashtun songs and i will tell you all persian songs of him. you will see farhad darya sang 90% into Parsi e darbari (language of noble persians and their kings) than in a backward pagho dagho language without any develops. What did you awghuls do in the last hundred years?? Just riddin donkeys?? Farhad Darya self callhimself as Tajik. In francfort in his last concert he said he is a proud persian,a tajik although he loves the pashtune people, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tajik-Professor (talk • contribs) 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Farhad Darya's father is Pashtun, which makes Farhad Pashtun. Farhad has many Pashto songs...Babulali is one. The reason he also sings in persian or other languages is so he can have fans from every ethnic. Besides, most Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak many languages other than their own Pashto. Learning more than one language is a thing smart people do. The Khrah Ghulaan Parsibanaan always lose. Parsibaan = Khar Koss, lol. Parsibaan = Behn Chode, lol. Parsibaan = Pother Nalat. Parsibaan = Koss Mother, lol. Parsibaan = moder chode, lol. Qizilbash = Chocha face, lol. Tajik = Cavrone, lol. We Pashtuns are now tired of beating the crap outta Parsibanaan, will these khra Kossaan Parsibanaan ever give up? Persians can say whatever they want, as the world never takes them serious.

lol you loser, farhad darya is half persian and half pakhtun. please tell me some pashtun songs and i will tell you all persian songs of him. you will see farhad darya sang 90% into Parsi e darbari (language of noble persians and their kings) than in a backward pagho dagho language without any develops. What did you awghuls do in the last hundred years?? Just riddin donkeys?? Farhad Darya self callhimself as Tajik. In francfort in his last concert he said he is a proud persian,a tajik although he loves the pashtune people, too.

Farhad Darya, Pashtun style.

Farhad Darya's father is Pashtun, which makes Farhad Pashtun. Farhad has many Pashto songs...Babulali is one. The reason he also sings in persian or other languages is so he can have fans from every ethnic. Besides, most Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak many languages other than their own Pashto. Learning more than one language is a thing smart people do. The Khrah Ghulaan Parsibanaan always lose. We Pashtuns are now tired of beating the crap outta Parsibanaan, will these khra Kossaan Parsibanaan ever give up? Persians can say whatever they want, as the world never takes them serious.

Farhad Darya split into pashtune face like he did one time in 1989 in Kabul. His father is a pashtune but a persianzied pashtune who don´t identify themself with afghans and afghan culture, similar like ahmad zaher. and that was the reason why he had to die because he was against his real identity. Farhad darya self claim himself as Persian, go or write to him and ask him personally. Farhad darya sang just two or three songs in Pashto but 95% of his songs are all in persian language, mostly poems of great khorassani heroes, ...not from kushal khan khattak or other pashtunes. ;-)

Look to president Amin or Karzei. They didn´t and do not calim themself as Pashtunes---cheers

Tajik-Professor

Ps;the homeladn of Pashtunes is Pakitsan the Peshawar-valley, the ancient ghandara capital where they pushed the greecs and sacaes out when they came as ashvakans from nortwest punjab. read as well BABURNAMA he call the peshawar, lahor and kafiristan region as Afghanistan and the inhabitens as Afghans

And Pashtunes are not decends of greecs. greecs looks eurpeans, paskhtuens look more like indians and indianized turks. apshtunes are a coalation of mayn tribes of non-aryan and aryan people like the durranis and khilzeis who are decends of turkized eftalits and the turkish khilijas. the mangals, jajris are the decends of the tribe mangal and jajrats. The Karokhils are decends of Kahroguz, another mongol tribe of djingis khan who became indianized or indo-iranized. Greecs gens looks european while more than 2/3 of pashtune gens have the same marks as the inhabitents of india, including of the negro drawidians.

AFGHANISTN IN THE MIDDLE AGE, TOLD BY BABUR AND WRITTEN IN HIS BABURNAMA

.. they retired to their homes. The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows! When the peace between the Rájá of Láhore and the infidel Gakkhars ended in war, the Gakkhars formed an alliance with their neighbours the Afgháns.

WITH KOHISTAN IT MEANS THE PAKISTANI DESTRICT NOT THE BADAKHSHANI DESTRIK!! DON´T MAKE THE FAULT ADN CHANGE BOTH: THE KHILIJS OR THE GHILZEIS WHO SETTLED TO SOUTH OF KABUL WERE JUST NOMADS LESSER THAN 2000 MEN AND THEIR AREA WHERE THEY LIVED BECAME KNOWN AS AFGHANISTAN; TOO BUT THEY HAD TO MOVE FROM SINDH TO KABUL AND FROM KABUL TO SINDH.

THIS IS TAKEN FROM BABURNAMA

speculative theories

We need to understand here that there are indeed numerous theories, but that is all they are is theories regarding the Pashtuns origins. Their language, culture, the practice of pashtunwali are clear indicators of who they are and where they originate. Other theories that Britannica and other encyclopedias would not think to include b/c they are highly speculative are superfluous, arbitrary and bloat the article and add nothing and feed speculation. Tombseye 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the Bellew theories are ARCHAIC. Written decades ago, there was much less known about the Pashtuns. Current academia does not support Rajput or Greek origins at all. Tombseye 00:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph I wrote was properly referenced and met WP:V. Six sources alone buttressed the information. I never presented it as a fact but as another theory concerning the origins of Pashtuns. Henry Walter Bellew was an authority on Pashtuns, Pashto, and other oriental languages. If the Bellwew theories were archaic, then the Daily Times (Pakistan) would not recently have published an article concerning the Rajput origins of Pashtuns. Wikipedia articles do not need to mention the exact same things as those in Britannica either. More information can be provided. For example, the article takes four pargraphs to discuss the speculative Maghzan-e-Afghani's Bani-Israel theory but will not accept one paragraph on Rajput and Greek origins. In light of these facts, I am presenting two compromises to this quandery. My paragraph can be shortened and put in the appropriate place in the article or a new section titled Other theories can mention my paragraph on Raput and Greek origins as well as other scholarly/sourced theories. Regarding your removal of India from the demographics section: Pashtuns have/had many communitites in India as mentioned in the article and sources. The Joshua Project website, whose figures are souced by UNESCO, give the statistic of 776,000 Pashto speaking Pashtuns in India. As mentioned by others above, your statistics only mention a refugee population, not a native population (i.e. those hailing from Rohilkhand - Pathankot, Rampur, etc.). As of now, the article is presenting only a refugee population, not the statistic/source mentioned above. In my opinion, this should be corrected as well. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here is the thing, Bellew IS archaic and the Daily Times isn't an academic journal. The Britannica and other encyclopedias are the barometer for these articles as is the US Library of Congress etc. The Hebrew origins is part of their oral tradition (which is speculative, but is part of their cultural perspective) and is not under the more credible anthropology section. As far as I know, the Pashtuns don't claim to be related to the Rajputs, whereas some claim descent from Greeks, which is again purely putative and unsustantiated as it is doubtful that there is a substantial link to constitute saying that all Pashtuns are partial descendents (they comprised, at their height maybe 5-10% of the population and included Hellenized Persians, in ancient Afghanistan) and the numerous invasions have wiped out their legacy. It's completely different from the Rajput link. The community in India are Pathans not Pashtuns, and that is why they aren't even mentioned in encyclopedias. The putative ancestry section was a compromise as people wanted some mention of the Pathans. This article will become a joke if we keep injecting, in this case, an India-centric perspective. The article is about the Pashtuns and not how to link them to India. They are their own group and are linked to the Iranian peoples via their language. Their religion was clearly pagan due to Pashtunwali etc. This is the mainstream perspective that I wrote to make the article a featured article as without this it has no credibility. Tombseye 13:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and there are not 776,000 pashto speakers in India. That joshua project figure is probably an assertion of their own estimates of Pathans, but there is NO reference as to where these pashto speakers came from and I have read all of the figures for Pashtun diaspora and refugees and none of them mention India. You're going to need better references than these and again, we aren't here to find links to India, but rather to present them IF they are credible, which they simply aren't. Tombseye 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

THIS TO TOMSEYE: WHY YOU PUTTIN PASHTUNS WERE MOSTLY PAGANS? MAN YOU GOT SOME PROBLEM WITH INSLUTING OR DEGRADING OTHER RACES OF PEOPLE? IF YOU DON;T KNOW SOMETHING DONT WRITE IT/ READ THIS RELIABLE SOURCE AND THEY DON'T MENTION ANY PAGANISM ANYWHERE IN AFGHANISTAN

Kushans (c. 135 B.C.–241 A.D.) Restless nomadic tribes living in Central Asia had long been of concern to the rulers of Bactria and their relentless encroachments into the settled areas fill the pages of the area’s early history. Real nomadic political power in Afghanistan was, however, first established by the Yueh-chih who, forced from their grazing lands on the Chinese border, enter this story as a loose confederation of five clans. United under the banner of one, the Kushan, they wrote one of history’s most brilliant and exciting chapters in Afghanistan.

Kushan King Kanishka (c. 130 A.D.) was this dynasty’s most forceful and colorful personality. The heart of his empire centered around two capitals: the summer capital of Kapisa, north of Kabul near the modern towns of Begram and Charikar, and Peshawar, the winter capital. Far beyond this, however, from the Ganges Valley to the Gobi Desert, satellite satrapies and independent states bowed to Kushan economic and political influence.

The Second Century A.D. which saw the Kushan Empire reach its greatest heights was a fabulous era in world history: the time of the Caesars in Rome and the Han Emperors in China, both of whom avidly exchanged their most exotic products and greedily eyed the spices, gems and cosmetics of India and Ceylon, the gems and furs of Central Asia. Silk was the major item of this trade and it is reported that it sold for $800,000 a pound in the sybaritic markets of Rome. Situated exactly midway on the great caravan route known as the Silk Route, the Kushans exploited their position and gained vast wealth and with it, great power.

In addition, during the first two centuries of the A.D. era sea trade between the northern and eastern coasts of Africa and India was brisk and prosperous. Sometime in the middle of the 1st century B.C. a Greek sailor named Hippalus discovered that he could take advantage of the monsoon winds and sail from southern Arabia to India in forty days. By 24 B.C. at least 120 ships set sail annually and by the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. ships and fleets had become so large that they were “agitating the white foam,” according to Strabo the geographer. The overland Silk Route takes its name from the most prestigious commodity traded along it. The sea route could therefore be called the Pepper Route, for though the great warehouses in the Indian ports were stocked with pearls and gems, fine fabrics and perfumes, it was the tangy spice from Malabar which was valued above all. In exchange, the merchants from Greece and Alexandria brought wine, metalwork, ceramics, glassware and slaves.

At Kapisa, political and commercial center of the Empire, French archaeologists discovered (1939) a most magnificent Kushan treasure which represents the extent and the richness of this trade in capsule form. Here, in two small rooms, exquisitely carved ivories wrought in classic Indian style were stacked side by side with fine Chinese lacquers and an infinite variety of Roman bronzes, bas reliefs and glass from Alexandria. Obviously, Kapisa’s citizenry had fine taste, and the wealth to indulge it. (On display, National Museum, Kabul; site discussed in section (3), Chapter 5).

The rise to world prominence had wrought great changes on the nomadic Kushans. Having no traditions on which to build a settled way of life, they adapted what they found in ways best suited to their own personality. What emerged was a vibrant and indigenous culture born of the fusion of western-oriented Bactrian ideals with those from eastern-oriented India, interpreted by the forceful, free character born on the steppes of Central Asia. The result was vital and dynamic.

The massive city site of Delbarjin built on the plains northwest of Balkh during the Achaemenid/Bactrian period flourished under Kushan occupation. Wall-paintings depicting the iconography of Buddhism and Hinduism exhibit stylistic affinities with Central Asia (Chapter 21; I. Kruglikova, 1970–present). Delbarjin is a most dramatic monument to Kushan power and culture. The old city of Kandahar was also extensively occupied during this period. An unique soapstone mold depicting a winged lion on an elephant standing on a lotus includes several Buddhist motifs; a stupa/monastery stands on a spur overlooking the city.

The revival of the ancient religion of Buddhism by Kanishka and the attendant emergence of Gandhara art are enduring manifestations of Kushan culture. A new school of Buddhist thought stressing the miraculous life and personality of the Buddha was officially sanctioned at a great council called by Kanishka. This humanization of the Buddha led directly to a desire for a representative figure of the Buddha who had, until this time, been depicted by such symbols as a wheel, an empty throne, a riderless horse, or a foot print. East and West joined in the creation of the familiar Buddha figure and adapted it to fit Indian philosophical ideals.

Scores of missionaries soon travelled the world to spread the word. They followed the caravans along the Silk Route and Buddhism spread from its homeland through Afghanistan to China and the lands of the Far East where it lives today as one of the Twentieth Century’s most vibrant religions.

Along the route they established countless shrines and monasteries and Afghanistan’s landscape is liberally sprinkled with Buddhist Kushan sites: Hadda and Darunta near Jalalabad; Kandahar; Maranjan, Shewaki and Guldara in and near Kabul; Tope Darra, Koh-i-Mari, Shotorak, and Paitava in the Koh Daman; Tapa Sardar in Ghazni; Wardak; Fondukistan in the Ghorband Valley; Bamiyan; Takht-i-Rustam in Samangan; Durman Tapa and Chaqalaq near Kunduz, and Tapa Rustam and Takht-i-Rustam at Balkh. The most recently identified complex, dated by carbon-14 ca. 150 A.D., sits beside the lake of Ab-i-Istada, southwest of Moqor (Dupree, 1974).

Tapa-i-Shotor, V1, Hadda

The central shrines at these religious complexes, called stupas, were lavishly decorated with sculptured scenes from the life of the Buddha. Fashioned from stone, stucco, or, simply from mud and straw, this indigenous art style, among history’s most stimulating and inspiring forms, bears the name of Gandhara Art.

Kanishka’s interest in religion was, however, eclectic. On his coinage the Buddha stands as only one of a wide pantheon of gods and goddesses representing deities of Greek, Persian, Central Asian and Hindu origin. Buddhist iconography is, for instance, totally lacking at Kanishka’s own temple at Surkh Kotal, just north of the Hindu Kush. Excavations began at Surkh Kotal in 1952 under the direction of Daniel Schlumberger. They have disclosed the existence of a purely indigenous religion centered around the cult of fire which may have been dedicated to the worship of Kanishka himself.

A layer of ash at Surkh Kotal speaks silently of the end of this brilliant era and the beginning of an age characterized by warring petty kingdoms. With the demise of the Great Kushans, the centers of power shift outside the area and almost 900 years pass before Afghanistan swings back into the spotlight.

Interim: Sasanian–Samanid Decadence sapped the power of both China and Rome and gravely disrupted the trade upon which Kushan prosperity depended. At the same time, civil wars following Kanishka’s death so weakened the Kushans that they fell under the sway of the recently established Sasanian Empire of Persia. Reduced to provincial status by the middle of the 3rd century A.D. (241 A.D.) they were subsequently swamped by a new wave of nomadic invasions from Central Asia. The Hephthalites (White Huns) came into Afghanistan about 400 A.D. and ruled for almost 200 years but little outside their ruthless destruction of Buddhist shrines is known of their Afghan sojourn. Thousands of large and small tumuli lying outside Kunduz on the plateau of Shakh Tapa have been identified as Hephthalite tombs by exploratory excavations conducted by French archaeologists under the direction of Marc Le Berre in 1963, and they may some day reveal a fuller picture of the Hephthalites in Afghanistan. For the moment, however, we know only that local strongmen, some now Hinduized, some still adhering to Buddhism, ruled Afghanistan. Tribal independence was the fiercely protected ideal.

The advent of Hinduism is clouded with mystery but Chinese accounts such as Hsuan-tsang’s in the 7th century report Hindu kingdoms in the Kabul, Gardez and Ghazni areas. Accidental finds of marble statuary representing the elephant god Ganesh were found in the Koh Daman and Gardez and some scholars have advanced the theory that the concept of Ganesh actually originated in the Afghan area. The two statues now reside as the principal votive figures in two of Kabul’s largest Hindu temples. A head of Shiva and a large fragmentary piece depicting Shiva’s consort, Durga, slaying the Buffalo Demon, were accidentally retrieved from Gardez; a head of Durga, a beautifully modeled male torso and a large lingam were discovered, also accidentally, in the Tagao Valley, between Gulbahar and Sarobi. All these pieces are now in the National Museum, Kabul.

A sculptured piece representing the Sun God Surya was excavated by French archaeologists at Khair Khana on the outskirts of Kabul in 1934 (J. Carl, DAFA). Most recently, exciting new scientifically excavated evidence has come from the Italian excavations at Tapa Sardar in Ghazni (M. Taddei, IsMEO; section (7), Chapter 9) and the Japanese excavations at Tapa Skandar in the Koh Daman (T. Higuchi, Kyoto). The results of future excavations at these sites are eagerly awaited.

Just 24 km; 15 mi. southwest of Kandahar, not far from Deh Morasi Ghundai, a large cave called Shamshir Ghar, excavated by Dupree in 1950, provides a tantalizing footnote to this confused era. Occupied from the 1st century B.C. to the 13th century A.D., a particularly thick occupation level relates to the Kushano-Sasanian period from 300–700 A.D. It seems unreasonable that people would choose to live in a cave at a time when several large cities like Bost and Zaranj, numerous towns, and countless villages provided more comfortable conditions. Nor could periodic stops by nomads have contributed such a thick level of material. It would seem rather that this was a place of refuge used by the inhabitants of the area while the Hephthalites and Sasanians battled for supremacy and during the early plundering raids by the Arabs which followed. Continuous political upheavals culminating in a Mongol invasion in the middle of the 13th century, the last significant occupation level at Shamshir Ghar, are amply documented by historical accounts.

Arab armies carrying the banner of Islam came out of the west to defeat the Sasanians in 642 A.D. and then they marched with confidence to the east. On the western periphery of the Afghan area the princes of Herat and Seistan gave way to rule by Arab governors but in the east, in the mountains, cities submitted only to rise in revolt and the hastily converted returned to their old beliefs once the armies passed.

The harshness and avariciousness of Arab rule produced such unrest, however, that once the waning power of the Caliphate became apparent, native rulers once again established themselves independent. Among these the Saffarids of Seistan shone briefly in the Afghan area. The fanatic founder of this dynasty, the coppersmith’s apprentice Yaqub ibn Layth Saffari, came forth from his capital at Zaranj in 870 A.D. and marched through Bost, Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul, Bamiyan, Balkh and Herat, conquering in the name of Islam. He then marched on Baghdad (873) to chastise the Caliph for failing to adequately confirm his authority but in this he was defeated and he returned to northern Afghanistan where another local Islamic dynasty, the Samanids ruling from Bokhara (872–999), contested his authority. Yaqub succeeded in keeping his rivals north of the Oxus River but immediately after his death in 879 the Samanids moved to take Balkh from his brother. Succeeding in 900 A.D., they moved south of the Hindu Kush and extended their enlightened rule throughout the Afghan area. Unlike the dashing, opportunistic soldier-of-fortune Yaqub, the Samanids stood for law and order, orthodoxy in Islam, and a return to cultural traditions. Balkh was a prominent Samanid town, the home of numerous poets including the beautiful but tragic poetess Rabia Balkhi whose tomb was discovered in 1964. The richly decorated remains of the mosque called No Gumbad, Nine Domes, also at Balkh, is an unique and very beautiful example of the highly sophisticated, exuberant Samanid culture.

South of the Hindu Kush, however, allegiance to Samanid authority was vague and constantly contested by revolt, especially in Seistan where a rapid succession of Yaqub’s descendants ceaselessly jockeyed for position and power which they miraculously maintained, albeit tenuously, as provincial officials until 1163. Elsewhere the country was apportioned approximately thus: Bost, Ar-Rukhaj (i.e., Arachosia or Kandahar) and Ghazni were ruled by Turkic princes; Kabul by the Hindu Shahi dynasty; Tukharistan (from Balkh to Badakhshan) had numerous fortified towns with their own princes; and Khurasan, roughly encompassing Meshed, Merv and Balkh with Herat at its center, was governed for the Samanids by a Turkic slave general.[4]-Mizorr

Point by point, the Kushans weren't Pashtuns. We do not know what role the Pashtuns played during their reign. Next, Buddhism was an urban religion as there are no remnants in rural areas where the majority of Pashtuns lived until recent times. It is also not known to what extent Pashtuns followed Buddhism or Zoroastrianism. Next, the Hindu dynasties are known, by their languages to have been of Punjabi origin and were also rulers and during their reign the societies were multi-religious and the Pashtuns were again still rural. In fact, Greek and Arab accounts separate Afghans as with Al-Biruni account: Al Biruni, writing in "Tarikh al Hind", also alludes to the eastern Afghans as being neither Muslim nor Hindu, but simply Afghans, which likely alludes to their pagan beliefs (Pashtunwali is a pre-Islamic remnant that is nothing like the Dharmic religions or Zoroastrianism etc.) not unlike the Kafirs and Kalash prior to the coming of Islamic invaders who lived in close proximity.Tombseye 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

TOMBSYS I FIND U AS A VERY RACIST PERSON TOWARDS THE PASHTUNS. IT IS NO WONDER WHY YOU ARE ALWAYS BUSY PUTTING YOUR OWN THOUGHTS AND IDEAS INTO THIS AND OTHER PASHTUN RELATED ARTICLES. YOU HAVE NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE CLUE TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING OR TO YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT PASHTUNS BEING PAGANS. PASHTUNWALI IS NOT A RELIGION. WHERE DID YOU LEARN THAT IT IS A RELIGION? IT IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR A RELIGION. THERE IS NO SUCH RELIGION BY THE NAME OF PASHTUNWALI. I KNOW YOU ARE A PERSIAN WHO IS TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO DISCRIMINATE, DEFAME, DEGRADE, PASHTUN PEOPLE BY LABELLING THEM OF HAVING PAGANISM PAST. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS PLANET MAKING THESE EMPTY AND BASELESS ACUSSATIONS. IF YOU HAVE NO SOURCE FOR YOUR CLAIM THEN YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WRITE THIS IN HERE. WHY ARE YOU REMOVING MY EDITS ABOUT ZALMAY KHALILZAD NOW BEING US AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS? LET THIS BE YOUR WARNING TO STOP PUTTING PASHTUNS AS BEING OF PAGANISM, I FIND THIS VERY OFFENSIVE AND ALSO STOP REVERTING MY EDITS. TELL YOU WHAT,,, IF YOU ARE A REAL MAN THEN LETS GO MEET EACH OTHER FACE TO FACE ANYWHERE YOU WANT TO CHOOSE AND I WILL BE THERE. OTHERWISE THEN YOU ARE NOT A MAN BUT A CHICKEN JUST SITTING BEHIND A COMPUTER SCREEN ALL DAY AND COMING WITH THOUGHTS ON WHAT NEGATIVE TO WRITE ABOUT PASHTUNS.-Mizorr 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm racist how? I largely wrote this article and made it a featured article. I have Pashtuns friends in real life and here on wikipedia so I don't know what you mean. And Pashtunwali is today part of the Pashtun culture, but what do you think it was before Islam? It is a pre-Islamic legacy and is a clear legacy of a different way of life. James Spain writes about and other authors allude to its religious qualities as other pagans such as the Kalash have cultural attributes that are not Indic or Iranic for example. I don't doubt that some Pashtuns were adherents of other religions, but being ruled by invaders doesn't mean everyone converts. I'm not Persian (in fact I have gotten into arguments over pan-Iranism with Persians) and I'm not alone in these theories as many believe them. Al Biruni would not write them as a separate group if they weren't. Surely you can agree with that? As for meeting you and namecalling, do try to grow up and act like an adult. If you have a problem explain your position rather than making accuasations and resorting to namecalling. You don't know me to mischaracterize me as I have not done the same to you. Peace. Tombseye 17:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tombseye, actually three out of six of the sources I placed in the article regarding Rajput/Greek ancestry were from Pashtun websites. The other two were from British sources and the last was from a Pakistani source. One of the references mentioned an Arab historian and his perspective. For this reason, it is evident that I am not trying to interject an India-centric perspective. In my opinion, a subsection called Other theories could be made that would briefly mention the Rajput/Greek theory among others. Regarding the 776,000 figure, the source is UNESCO, a highly reputable organization. Please check the source for yourself. In my opinion, this source goes deeper than your source which only accounts for refugees. You mentioned that you had other sources that account for a total population. Could you please list them here? And actually, a previous edition of Britannica mentioned non-Pushtu speaking Pathans saying that the

“ Pathans in all India were nearly 31 million, but the speakers of Pushtu numbered less than l4 million ”

Given this quote, the Joshua Project/UNESCO figure is not that unreasonable. For this reason, I am restoring the reference to India that you removed from the FA version and the reference User:Mizorr inserted. I will not reinsert the Bellew theory nor the new population figures until we have both agreed/compromised on their relevancy/accuracy. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Pashtun websites aren't academic either and are often nationalistic other than as a general barometer of current culture. Encyclopedias and academics do not support Rajput-Greek origins and I don't believe it has a place here either. And those figures are of Pathans. There is NOTHING about Pashto speakers. There is nothing from the UN, nothing from encyclopedias which list where Pashtuns live and nothing from anything else. Think about these additions for a second. If you someone like Bellew and you are researching a new group, your first view may be to link them to people you know of, like Rajputs and the Greeks whom the British practically deified. His views are not very credible at all. As for 776,000 Pashtuns in India, where do they live and do they speak Pashto? And why doesn't the Indian govt. list them as an ethnic group? The Joshua Project figures are either about Pathans or are just plain wrong. Consider the position of these people. They aren't experts and do not teach at universities or write for Encyclopedia Iranica or Britannica etc. Consider these things before going for a Pashtun presence in India that I frankly think does not exist. Pathans yes, but Pashtuns no. Tombseye 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

India in 1860

Tombseye, thanks for your reply. Including the Bellew theory and other alternate theories were something I had just suggested. I will honor your request not to include them in the article ;). The Indian Government does include Pathans under Forward Castes (please see here). As to whether the term encompasses the Afghan proper and/or thier descendants is hard to determine from this souce because Indians use the term Pathan for those living in both India and Pakhtunkhwa. The Joshua Project/UNESCO source seems to include both as a the map therein places a heavy concentration in Rohilkhand. I'd imagine most of the Pashto speaking Pashtuns would reside in Jammu and Kashmir. I don't think that the source is referring to the 776,000 as Urdu speaking Pathans but as Pashto speaking Pashtuns. This is because the reference gives a separate number of 9,675,000 Urdu speaking Pathans. I'd imagine that they came from Afghanistan when it shared a border with India (see map to the right) in the same manner they came to Iran. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting things, but most of the Pathans in Kashmir are, from what I've read, Hindkowans and local Kashmiris who speak Kashmiri but claim Pashtun descent. I'm not saying they aren't of Pashtun descent necessarily (given their geographic proximity many might be), but this is not the place to include them as Pashtuns. What I have suggested in the past and met with resistance is that an article on Pathans in India could be a viable article. Yes, and as we know Rohilkhand Pathans are partial descendents of Pashtuns, but have mixed with local peoples, speak Urdu and are thus not included in references. They aren't Pashtuns in that this is a specific group that speaks Pashto, practices Pashtunwali (or is at least aware of it), and lives in close geographic proximity. The Punjabis divide the Pashtun areas from India and thus there is no similar continuity as with Iran where Pashtuns live in Khorasan and speak the language. It may not be popular, but Indian Pathans or South Asian Pathans or whatever might be have a place as an article, but within what context I'm not sure. Tombseye 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and the Encyclopedia is from 1911 when the NWFP was part of British India and is thus not viable for our purposes today. They are again referring to groups that claim Pashtun descent which is still a separate issue. Tombseye 20:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Note where Joshua Project gets their figures from: Pashtu Northern. It does not list 776,000 Pashto speakers in India as this group does not exist. There may be a small recent refugee population that speaks pashto, but no native group at all. Consider these sources and their credibility rather than simply believing them. Tombseye 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your information is interesting. However, why would the previous Britannica version mention non-Pashto speaking Pathans? From what I've read, the Pashtuns in Jammu and Kashmir are those from the British Raj and the skirmishes right after the partition of India (see reference). I don't see a need for a separate article. I think the Putative Ancestry section does service as does the article on Rohillas (which you could expand). The Pashto speaking population in India could also be made up of Kabuliwallahs. For example, see this article which mentions Pashto speaking Pathans in New Delhi, India. I noticed that you changed "Iranics and Indics" to "Tajiks and Hindkowans". This is incorrect because the paragraph discusses the introduction of Zoroastrianism and Hinduism/Buddhism. According to my reference, the former is correct. Also, if you will read the Joshua Project site, the statistics are from UNESCO, not Ethnologue. And your source, Ethnologue, does include India in their figures: "Along Afghanistan border, most of NWFP, Yusufzai, and Peshawar. Also spoken in Afghanistan, India, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom." By the way, there is no need for this. I am simply discussing issues with you in good faith ;). I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are discussing the issues and paying attention to responses. I don't see anything "going wrong fast" when editors are attempting to be civil and compromise on issues in accordance with Wikipedia policies. This is precisely what article talk pages are for, to discuss disagreements with the content of the article, and work out these disagreements among editors to produce an excellent article. Keep up your current attitude, Anupam, and continue researching. KP Botany 23:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is simple why, the British adopted the use of the term Pathan and applied to anyone who claimed to be Pathan and added to this ethnic Pashtuns. It's an outdated resource. We are in the 2007 and so why would we rely upon something 1911. Makes no sense at all. Secondly, the main influence upon the Pashtuns was historically the Persians whose language is related and whose cultural influence was predominant until the British came and incorporated the area into British India (or a part of it). The Indian influence is largely Buddhism as there are virtually no Hindu temples of any note found in the Pashtun areas which suggests that in essence this was a religion of rulers (such as the Shahis). And the term Iranics and Indics is bizarre. We might as well say Iranians or Iranian peoples and Indians, but even that seems too broad and pointless. We could go with Persians and Indians as I see how that might make sense from the context of what you're saying. I wasn't referring to you about getting Khoikhoi, but the other guy who acting childish. the figures, if they are from UNESCO, are still wrong. There are no secondary sources to back the claim that people in India speak Pashto on scale even comparable to northeastern Iran. Not by a long shot. Thus, we are back to square one. I will change the section to say Persians and Indians though as that is a valid point. Peace. Tombseye 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I again checked the Joshua Project and the only mention of UNESCO is a bizarre map. Also, I looked at the map they were using as a basis of languages of India here. I clicked on the sources link and it just leads to this. And that map of Pashto speakers in India, from UNESCO, is just completely wrong. Over 10 million Pashto speakers?! And this is the only source that makes that claim?! Dear God, I don't think Britannica, Iranica, and all the other sources such as the US Library of Congress, numerous books (and I've read plenty) could all overlook that many Pashtuns? Come on, do you really think this is a viable source given its inconsistencies and the lack of verifiability and no secondary corroborating sources to back up its claims? Pashto would be listed as a MAJOR language of India if there were so many Pashtuns in the country. For a featured article in particular, using this stuff would simply drag this article into a downward spiral as the information is both arbitrary and sloppy and inaccurate. We must conclude that what they are referring to and misinterpreting is that millions of Indian Muslims claim partial Pashtun descent through paternal lines, but do not speak Pashto (they appear to mainly speak Urdu from what I can gather) and thus are outside the immediate parameters of this article. Tombseye 01:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent change to the article was commendable. Thanks. Regarding the Joshua Project/UNESCO statistics: I think you seem to be misinterpreting the map. I can understand why it can be confusing because it lumps Urdu speaking Pathans with Pashto speaking Pashtuns. In order to read the map, one must first look at the table juxtaposed with it. Notice, that of the total "over 10 million" population of the Pathan people group in India, 9,675,000 speak Urdu, making them what you would call Pathans with putative ancesty. Only 776,000 of that population is said to speak Pashto, according to the map and table. Considering that over 20% of the 120 million Muslims in India claim Pathan origin, the Joshua Project/UNESCO figures of total Pathans (inclusive of both the large number of Indian Pathans and smaller number of ethnic Pashtuns) is not unreasonable at all. Pashto is not a major language in India because only a minority of Pathans/Pashtuns speak it: those who have clung to their heritage, those that are there to study (which seems to be a lot), and those that are there for business. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see and understand the information now, but it is still incorrect. I find it hard to believe that 776,000 Pashtuns have been thus overlooked by any other corroborating source. Don't you find this odd? As for the other information, well the Afghan students is not a permanent settlement (nor are there figures given), and the other articles explain about the Kabuliwallahs and others who settled, but now speak Urdu. This is all covered in the putative section. I still don't see how we can add the figures for India as this information seems grossly inaccurate. There is no geographic continuity to explain where they live, such as Kashmir, which is not likely. Tombseye 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is difficult to find sources on the Pashtuns/Pathans of India because the Census of India does not take into account ethnicity. If you read the Afghan source from Dawat: Study of the Pathan Communities in four States of India, you must have noticed that the article stated that some families still can speak/understand Pashto. In addition, the article states that

“ The whole of India was one big piece of land before the British left and people of different ethnic groups could move from one place to another as they do in any free country. ”

I think that quote might help address your issue about geographic continuity. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. 776,000 is a large number to overlook. I believe that UNESCO made an error as there is no corroborating official source to support so many Pashto-speakers in India. Couple that with a lack of geographic continuity and you have no real Pashto-speaking legacy in India aside from those who moved there and their putative Indian Muslim descendents. There is simply no evidence to support inclusion of a group that appears to not exist. If it did, encyclopedias, academics who specialize in Pashtun sociology, and censuses would reflect this. Since that is not the case we cannot include India as having a large Pashtun presence because it clearly does not have one.Tombseye 23:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mizorr are you a complete idiot? You think Pashtun history starts when the Arabs arrived and brought Islam? Get real, you are just another dumb Taliban ashamed of your own history. Pashtuns were Buddhist prior to Islams arrival. They were mentioned in the Vedas as a people native to the region of Hindu Kush mountains. And speaking Pashto means NOTHING for ethnicity as a Pashtun or Pathan. The Pashtun kings of India and Afghanistan all spoke Persian instead of Pashto. This is why the ones in India speak Urdu as Persian transitioned into Urdu as the Mughal Empire (which included QABUL and QANDAHAR) began to recede. Being far enough away from their commoner countrymen, the Afghans, they had little need to keep up the practice of speaking Pashto when everyone spoke Persian. Pashto and its derivatives might not be spoken any more amongst the Pathans of India but most of them still adhere to the concept of Pakhtunwali, more so than Wahabized Afghans. Simple tenets of hospitality, tolerance, honor, patience, and of course not taking an insult. All Afghans seem to do is INSULT their Pathan cousins in India and Pakistan and we are tired of taking it. A wahabi or deobandi fanatic has no right to call himself a Pakhtunwali following Pashtun. Just an ill-educated renegade hirabi. 100 years ago there wouldn't be this nationalistic problem. Other than language and minor nuances there is no difference between Pashtun culture and that of the rest of North India. Go watch classic Afghan films they are just like classic Bollywood cept in Pashto and they are wonderful films showing Afghanistans true heritage and culture, not this wahabi crap you see today. Keep in mind it was the BRITISH and their Durrand line that separates Pashtun Afghanistan from the rest of South Asia. Pashtuns want to associate themselves with Persians these days they need to go learn their own history and how Persia has little to do with Pashtuns other than language, spoken by the elite throughout all of North India and Afghanistan. Persians and other Parsiwan are not Afghan but from the Persian perspective of history they are the actual inhabitants even though they had no hand in building Qabul, Peshawar, or Qandahar, Pashtun cities. Any of us Pathans can learn Pashto, it's a language and half the words in it are in Urdu as well. Plenty of Americans have mastered the Pashto language to combat your terrorist neighbors. If we learn Pashto does it make us the real deal again in your Afghan eyes? More importantly, do us educated, respected, and intelligent Pathans care about what a bunch of cave dwelling illiterate Afghans think? Get serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.168.225 (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Pashtuns?

Jewish Pashtuns are discussed at several points in the article, but I don't see any reference that such a community of native Pashto-speaking Jews actually ever existed. Am I missing something? There's a difference between saying that there were Jewish communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan and saying that there were Pashtun Jews. If there are no WP:RS on this point, I think any such speculation should be removed.--Pharos 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous references in the web and in historical documents stating that Pashtuns have long-running traditions that they originated from the original Jewish tribes. See Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites for more. thanks. --Sm8900 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not talking about the oral traditions of the Pashtuns that posit an ancient Israelite origin. That is an unrelated issue. I am referring to the discussions of modern "Pashtuns of the Jewish faith" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Is there any evidence that the Jewish communities in these countries ever used Pashto as their primary cultural language?--Pharos 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, can't help you there, friend. Hope you find some good information on that useful topic. thanks. --Sm8900 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The main thing with this is that there were Jews in Peshawar and Kandahar, traditionally Pashtun strongholds and thus they were more than likely Pashto-speakers. I'm conflicted on this as I'm tempted to delete all mention of them given the scant and frankly circumstantial evidence of Pashtun Jews (that is Pashtuns who practice Judaism) as they may just be Persian Jews, but there is no clarity with the Peshawar group that was pretty small to begin with. Tombseye 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the most important thing to consider here is (1) we don't even know if they spoke Pashto (and if they did whether it was their primary cultural language) and (2) even if they spoke Pashto it is extremely unlikely that they ever self-identified or were identified by others as "Pashtuns". I suggest we replace the discussion of Jews at Pashtun_people#Cultural_definition with a discussion of some more prominent religious minority like Shi'as (are there Sunni Pashtuns who do not accept Shi'a Pashtuns?) and that we recontextualize the "Pashtun Jewish" discussion at Pashtun_people#Religion. For what it's worth, from my limited reading it seems most likely that the Jewish community in Peshawar and Kandahar were Bukharian Jews, who speak a language similar to the Tajiks.--Pharos 03:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's all true. The inclusion of Pashtun Jews was a holdover from the much smaller and poorly written article I rewrote (with the help of many) to be a featured article. I agree that writing about the Shias would be more productive, but I had trouble finding good info. on them. Probably go to research library when I get a chance to find out more. I agree that the Jews in the region were probably Bukharian Dari speakers. I'll take mention of them out of the article. Thanks for bringing this up. And if you have info. on Shia Pashtuns, then by all means share. Ciao. Tombseye 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is pathan and who isn't?

The common practice is to treat ethnicity as per lineage/blood and thats what each and every reader who reads Wikipedia expects. When you write or edit this article you are supposed to follow common conventions and not force your definition of ethnicity. The only solution to this problem seems to be that the article mention that Pashtuns generally consider a pathan to live by pashtunwali to be considered a true Pashtun or some such thing. Also if you are not going to include a certain person even though he has pashtun parents, then the reason for that should be apparent in the Definition of the Pashtun people.

Ok another thought lets say in the article on Islam, if some muslim considers that someone mentioned in that article does not follow the basic tenets of Islam. Does that mean that person can not be mentioned in that article?

Hasan

Pashtuns have rarely been politically united?

Why does this article starts with "Pashtuns have rarely been politically united"? Sounds to me like someone is pushing their POV but ignoring facts. The REF to back the claim is from late 1600s and does not mention Pashtuns being disunited, [[REF: Khushal Khan Khattak was the chief of the Khattak tribe, and also a great warrior poet. He urged other Afghan tribes to resist Moghul domination of their lands, and to unite. He wrote excellent poetry in Pashto about such things as unity, honor, war, love, and everyday life. He also wrote about philosophy and ethics. His poetry is still widely read. He died in 1689.]] It should say that Pashtuns have been politically united since 1747 until present days. REF 1: Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747. REF 2: Afghans and Pakistanis had same religion, languages, culture and traditions and no one could separate them from each other--Khan1982 12:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

i think the people who wrote these articles are just jealous of pushtoons and are tryin to say that pashtoons are nothin so i wouldnt read this cause its stupid and totally not true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.59.149 (talk) 01:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, what is there to be jealous about? I think some people who edit articles about ethnic groups take things too personal. As far as I know Pashtun ethnic group has been united since we know it, they follow a type of idea that naturally keeps them united. I don't think there are any differences among the Pashtuns, like how there are differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims, all Pashtuns are Sunni.--Khan1982 09:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Iranian-speaking

User:Beh-nam has removed the reference to the Iranian language of the Pashtuns from the intro without explaining why [5]. Someone should revert that.

Pashto is an Iranian language no doubt, but there is no such language as Iranian, Pashtuns language is Pashto, not Iranian (Pashto is an Iranian language). -- Behnam 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The article said "Iranian-speaking ethno-linguistic" people. This is a common expression in scholarly literature. See here: [6]. Your edit was contraproductive, and your reasoning is weak. By the way, the article says that Pashtuns were the "most intransigent tribe that fought British Indian incursions". This is not true. According to British sources, the Tajiks of Kohistan were the fiercest enemies of Afghanistan's occupation. See this article in Britannica 1911: [7]. It says: The Kohistani Tajiks proved to be the most powerful and the best organized clans that opposed the British occupation of Kabul in 1879-80.

Ok I'll revert it, also I guess since most Pashtuns speak Farsi over Pashto. -- Behnam 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Edit warring on this page spilled into insulting commentary on talk pages, and, as a result, I've protected the page for 48 hours -- Samir 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Collages are copyright violation

Even if they are of public domain pictures. We had this discussion, which is archived, and found this to be the case. Tombseye 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that conclusion but I respect the fact that it was discussed and something was agreed upon and apologize for the edit. Out of interest, what archive page can I find this discussion on? Thanks. --Yenemus 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We had it on all of the pages I worked on to make them Featured articles. I don't recall where it is in the archives here, probably somewhere with the FA nomination. It was also something that took place with Iranian peoples and Azerbaijani people, which I also worked on. The main central point was that a collage constitutes a new image and thus is a violation. Tombseye 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Hi Tombseye. Another reason I removed this: are prominently represented in the military and is because I don't think it should be in the intro. Maybe it should be removed to another section? -- Behnam 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with moving it. Any reason why you think it shouldn't be in the intro? I thought it was kind of a useful general issue to raise given the dominance of the Pakistan military there and the role of the Pashtun contingent which is disproportionately represented given their % of the total population. Thanks. Tombseye 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A Clarification of Language

From what I've understood on this talk page, this article only concentrates on Pashtuns who speak Pashtu as a first language, correct? I understand we're using a scholarly definition here, but isn't this controversial in the scholarship world in itself? I suppose Tombseye could clarify this the best.

Let me give you an example. I am a Pashtun of direct paternal lineage, of the Mohammadzai of the Durani tribe, a small portion of which immigrated from Afghanistan to Pakistan perhaps around little over a century ago because of political turmoil. My father's family which settled in Dera Ismail Khan speaks Siraiki, while my mother's family speaks Hindko. Both sides of the family know Pashtu as a second/third/fourth language, but not as their first. Culturally and genetically, if not lingually, our family shares and celebrates Pashtun heritage, perhaps my mother's side more than my father's.

It seems odd to me that we are assuming there is a consensus in the scholarly world that a Pashtun must speak Pashtu, especially considering how diverse the ethnic group is in itself, not even considering its sheer geographical breadth. The Mohammadzai generally speak Dari as their first language, while an urbanized Pashtun in Karachi may even know Urdu before Pashto. But, this does not make the former Persian, nor even specify the latter in any race in particular (Urdu has no 'race' after all). I feel there is a huge need to widen the scope of this article, and would be more than happy to cite scholarly research on this subject to prove my point. I also understand how controversial this is, hence me writing this before making any drastic changes on my own. --Enzuru 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what we did was basically go with what Encyclopedia Britannica/Encylcopedia Americana and the host of books I listed use as defining Pashtuns as a group. They all use the qualifier of speaking Pashto so there is SOME consenus amongst at least reference writers. We added a putative section to accommodate what Britannica refers to as 'Punjabi Pathans' (Hindkowans

as well though. Ethnic lines are very hazy obviously and my intent was not to draw lines in the sand per se, BUT without some parameters this article was in danger of spiraling out of control. By that I mean that encyclopedias and reference books tend to lump together groups based upon language as well as cultural factors such as practicing Pashtunwali and living in close geographic proximity and written records that point towards kinship and the views of the Pashtuns themselves. They do this to create some order and clarity as the complex lineages issue can muddle the matter and make it very difficult to stay focused.

I understand. Indeed in that region of the world in particular ethnic lines can't be driven, because of so many 'transitionary' ethnic groups. You have to be a bit picky about it. However, as you said before, aside from the language issue, the cultural issues such as Pashtunwali and tribal kinship will be found among the Hindkowan and Siraiki speakers as well.

As for consensus, the problem is that academics do tend to identify Pashtuns based upon language and their living space is defined as Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Thus, the references speak for themselves in this regard. Now what you may be talking about is that there is a Pashtun lineage issue as well which we talk about in the article. The problem is that this falls under things like talking about people who claim to be of Arab descent or descended from Muhammad himself etc. and we just can't really accommodate that other than mentioning that some people claim such and such descent.

The lineage thing I can understand is also somewhat of a cloudy issue. Indeed, many people claim to be descended from Muhammad in a direct male lineage to Ali, and to some extents they are accurate and less accurate, but when it comes to ethnic groups living by the Pashtuns who have intermarried them as they invaded, migrated, or came as refugees, it becomes I feel a little odder to classify them as simply the 'other' face, much like someone who is one-fourth African-American in ethnicity will be considered completely African-American in the United States. Once again however, I understand the lingual issue you're pushing.

With the examples, the Muhammadzai, as far as I know, do speak Pashtu and may often be bilingual in Dari (as are many Afghans for that matter), as Karzai is, while some urban Pashtuns speak Dari almost exclusively mainly in Kabul and other areas where they aren't a majority. The Hindkowans, like the Tajiks, are part of an area that is mingled and mixed up to the point that the groups all overlap each other. Now for our purposes, there is some evidence to indicate that groups like Persianized Pashtuns show an overlap with Tajiks while Hindkowans are the intermediate group between Pashtuns and Punjabis/Seraikis. And that's another issue as well, intermarriage and cultural assimilation. In short, it's all a mess when talking about claiming descent, which may be perfectly valid. I didn't set the precedent though and specifically there should be an article that e discusses the Pashto-speaking Pashtuns who do form a group of their own that does require speaking the language for 'membership', at least amongst themselves. In addition to the putative section in this article (and this article is already too long), some mention of Seraiki Pathans could be put into the Seraikis article and you could also work to clarify the issue on the Hindkowans page. And I think you would agree that the Pashtuns are named after the language of Pashto (synymous with the code of honor) and so there is some evidence of language as a signifier. Cheers. Tombseye 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Most among the Muhammadzai speak Dari as a first language to the best of my knowledge. I've talked to many Pashtuns regarding us, and though we are considered a princely tribe, our origins and interaccial marriages with Persians and Turks have been frowned upon as being impure. But very few will consider us non-Pashtun. So, I simply can't agree with this statement that the speaking of the language becomes part of some circle of membership. Many Pashtuns in the United States, who come from Pashtun-speaking backgrounds, will identify themselves as ethnic Pashtuns, and by all means this is correct. But, actually, I think you gave me the best idea now. I will simply start reforming the Hindkowan and Siraiki articles to include information about the Pashtuns among them. Thanks for your help. --Enzuru 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Majority of Muhammadzais speak Pashto, why not the rest of them, there is reason behind it, when Pearls of pearl (Duri-duran) presided Afghanistan, at that time Farsi was the official language, as the king he should have imposed Pashto as first official language against other office languages but unfortunately he didn't do it, if he had done it than Pahsto would have been a more efficient language as compare to today. Its all our own fault, here a pashto proverb "Wai cha kare akhpala - nu biya gila sala". My younger brother is living in Ireland and forgotten his language so I am calling him Pathan, a name which we have been awarded by some Mughals and Britishers so for non pashto speakers pathan would be suitable, while pashtun should be the one who know his language, tradition and culture, dosn't matter where he dwell. Sorry for intervening. Haider 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Demographics map deleted?

Why was that map deleted? It was made by a user here on Wiki, so there were no license problems. Very strange. -- Behnam 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think map wasn't covering the whole Pashtuns area of the region, it could have been a more impressive map but it is not, man who drew this map should think that what areas are being missed and for that have a close look, anyways I didn't delete it. Take care. Haider 08:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was covering all areas. Don't claim Balochistan as Pashtun

land. I suspect it was a sockpuppet of user: NisarKand that deleted it because he thinks Balochistan is Pashtun land. I will get the person who uploaded it to upload it again. -- Behnam 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Won't you accept dominating pashtun areas in Balochistan, where pashtuns have been living for centuries, where will you place the pashtuns tribes of Dera Ismail Khan and Pahsto speaking Pashtuns ofHazara Division(the largest of all divisions)? Have those pashtun lands been shown on so-called map? Think again, Take care. Haider 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for the map to show every single Pashtun settlement. The map showed areas where there was a predominant Pashtun population and that was good enough. The map actually exaggerated the Pashtun population around Quetta... Regardless, it was a good map and I suspect it was a like minded person (a person who believes Balochistan is Pashtun land) that deleted that map. It should be brought back. -- Behnam 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought you must be thinking about the missing Pashtun Districts in that so-called pashtun map, I was trying to get your attention about million of Pashtuns, who were missing, not some few or single pashtun settlers, did I mentioned some single settlement of pathans of India, or had only Qais baba settled Pashtuns around? Think again. Thanks. Haider (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pashtun Political Party "Afghan Mellat" and their agenda in Afghanistan

On the fateful day of November 12, 1893, Amir Abdul Rahman Khan of Afghanistan and Sir Mortimer Durand, the foreign secretary of the British Indian government both agreed and signed upon the Durand Line Treaty, setting up the border between Afghanistan and then British India/present-day Pakistan. The nationalist Pashtuns have always resented this Line. When the country has more important issues to worry about, certain groups of ethno-centric Pashtuns refuse to let go of the Durand Line issue. This, of course, is just another way for them to further their own agendas in Afghanistan.

Politically-driven motives and agendas serve the interests of specific parties while harming everyone else involved—there is nothing new or even controversial about this statement. History as an overview is a record of these politically-driven agendas and the world today is nothing more than the outcomes of post-colonialism with the victors on one end and the defeated on the other. Artificially created states are the residues of the former colonialists being the fact that the state system was mostly a European creation, so to speak. Playing a game of geo-political hop-scotch, the European colonists set up states and upon leaving, they left successors and, in most cases, unpopular and unrepresentative regimes that ran each state. All of the states that were set up were multi-ethnic countries. In Afghanistan, every ethnic group is a minority whereas other states like Turkey, the leading ethnicity, Turks, made up about 70% of the country with the Kurds making up the minority. In Turkey, the Turks are the ruling class just like how the Arabs are the ruling class among countries like Iraq, Syria, etc. and like the Hindus in India, the Persians in Iran, and Punjabis in Pakistan.

Regardless of which group of successor was left in the countries by the Europeans, all the bureaucrats focused on the interests of their own ethnic group—whether it was the Turks, Pashtuns, Punjabis, etc.—instead of the interests of the pluralistic society as a whole. However, there is a difference between Afghanistan and the rest of the aforementioned countries. In Turkey, the Turks have established themselves politically, socially, economically, culturally, etc. They ran the Ottoman Empire, a once-powerful Empire, for a long period of time. As for the Persians, they have had thousands of years of culture and history, they ruled over great regions and their culture is recognized even to this day at the same time influencing other cultures. The Arabs have also conquered a great amount of land at one point, spreading their influence over the regions. The Hindus have an old culture that also still exists to this day and is very much respected and explored by others. Afghanistan, formed from parts of the Persian land of Khorasan, consists of different ethnic minority groups and has culturally, historically, and linguistically always followed the Persian culture. For Tajiks, Hazaras and the vast majority of Uzbeks and urbanized Pashtuns, their native tongue is Farsi/Dari. The nationalistic Pashtuns were threatened by this humiliating aspect because as the political successors, their culture and language was just an insignificant subculture of Khorasan and just limited to themselves. The tribes of Pashtuns are nomadic, underdeveloped, and to this day in order for them to be considered literate, they have to learn Farsi/Dari and even their ruling Pashtun elites have always adopted the Persian culture and language. Historically, for the most part they were always the subjects of Persians as well as the subjects of foreigners like the Turks, Arabs etc. It is interesting to note that Farsi is the lingua de franca in Iran just as Turkish is in Turkey and Arabic is in Iraq, etc. However, Afghanistan is Persian-dominated—speaking Farsi/Dari instead of Pashto as the nationalistic Pashtuns would like it to be. Schools, businesses, government, judicial systems—all use Farsi/Dari.

As expected, Pashtun groups such as the fascistic Afghan Mellat rose and opposed the adopted Persian culture and sought to Pashtunize the country through any means. However, not only did organization such as the Pashto Tolana which created the fraudulent Pota Khazana (Hidden Treasure) not have the desired results, they, in fact, caused greater problems because people made a mockery out of it and continue to make fun of it to this day. Forging their ethnicity percentage levels to reveal larger numbers did not prove to be a stabilizing factor and like everything else, it backfired on them, causing people to become infuriated with their tricky and devious tactics. And so, they turned once more to the Durand Line. The nationalistic Pashtuns continuously state that the Durand Line is void and that they should have full rights over the NWFP and Baluchistan.

As stated before, the Durand Line is simply a name for the border that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan; however, certain ethno-centric groups of Pashtuns have tried to exaggerate the subject to greater proportions by claiming that it is land rightfully due to them. What those nationalistic Pashtuns fail—or even refuse—to understand is that the Durand Line did not give or take any territory/land to British India or Afghanistan. Instead, it just demarcated the border between two countries; in other words, it is a line that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan, running from China to Persia. Even before the British came into the region, this border had already existed as a de facto border for almost a century with the Sikhs controlling the areas south of the line. Britain then basically replaced the Sikhs and invaded the regions of today's Afghanistan (north side of the line) several times and took control of the whole region. Each time they retreated, they withdrew into British India—south side of today's Durand line. The Durand Line treaty put an end to the fighting between the two oppositions, stating that neither side would try to interfere with the other. And most importantly, the treaty, agreeably signed by both parties, did not take property away from Afghanistan. Now, to raise their numbers and pursue their agendas, the nationalistic Pashtuns want to annex two of the four provinces of Pakistan, NWFP and Baluchistan (the other two provinces are Sindh and Punjab), and combine them with Afghanistan.

In a separate treaty with China, Britain gained control of Hong Kong for 99 years. Unlike the Durand Line Treaty, this treaty with China over the Hong Kong ports was indicated to last only 99 years. The Pashtun community of Afghanistan is mistakenly under the impression that the 1893 agreement between British India's foreign minister, Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, and Amir Abdur Rahman Khan was for 99 or 100 years. This time limit is a rumor whose origins are unknown but repeated like a mantra by high-ranking politicians until they misled the country into thinking that the Durand Treaty was to be null and void in 1993. However, to date, no one has provided any sort of evidence that proves that the treaty was to last for 99 or 100 years. Over the years, the rumor became a myth due to the fact that there is not any valid documentation as proof. There are, however, documentations that prove just the opposite – that the Pashtun leaders had plenty of opportunities to invalidate the Durand Treaty but had instead chose to continuously uphold it. And the text of the Durand Treaty which provides proof to the legitimacy of the Durand Line's existence is easily accessible in websites, encyclopedias and other various sources. Not to mention that two of the original copies of the Durand Treaty are still kept in the Museums of London, UK and in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

The Durand Treaty as well as the documents created by the joint commissions of British India and Afghanistan from 1893 to 1896 regarding the physical demarcation of the border contained information on the border as well as the weaponry, ammunition, and annual payments that Amir Abdur Rahman would receive from Britain. It also stated that neither side would interfere with the other's affairs. But there was no mention of a 99-100 year time limit placed on the treaty. The agreements were confirmed with both parties satisfied at the outcome. So it is perplexing as to how some members of one ethnic group came up with such a nonsensical allegation of a 100 year claim. All without any evidence. The only thing close to a time limit was the acknowledgement that the treaty was valid for however long Amir Abdur Rahman was king.

In 1901 Abdur Rahman died and his son, Amir Habibullah Khan, became king. For a while, Britain requested that Amir Habibullah Khan meet with their representative in Delhi, India so that they could go over the matters of mutual interests as well as the treaties that were upheld between Britain and Amir Abdur Rahman so that Amir Habibullah Khan, his son and Afghanistan's new king, could go over the accords with them and sign them. Instead of meeting with Britain's representative in Delhi, Amir Habibullah sent a message stating that there was no need for him to go to Delhi because he accepts and accredits all the agreements between his late father Amir Abdur Rahman and Britain. Britain, not satisfied with that response, insisted, and Amir Habibullah Khan, satisfied with the yearly payments of 1.8 million rupees, continuously refused. Britain was adamant, though, and they stopped their payments to Amir Habibullah. As soon as the funds stopped, Amir Habibullah immediately sent an invitation to Britain to set up a meeting with Britain's representative. British viceroy in India, Lord Curzon, sent his foreign minister on an official visit to Kabul to meet with Amir Habibullah.

         Instead of traveling to British India, Habibullah Khan was

pleased to receive Sir Louis W. Dane, British India's foreign minister, in Kabul. Toward the end of 1904 Dane arrived with new treaties and proposals which contained the same contents as the former documents i.e. the Durand Line, annual payments to the King, etc. The foreign minister of British India explained that though Abdur Rahman's heir and successor was willing to accept his father's past agreements, Britain was not willing to honor them because the death of the former king had nullified the original treaties. On March 21, 1905 Amir Habibullah had signed the documents and everything was re-instated. This was come to known as Dane Treaty which stated "In the words of His Majesty Amir Habibullah Khan: I hereby honor all the articles of Durand Treaty including all the other agreements and pacts that my late father signed with Britain's representatives. I'll act according to them and I'll honor the pact of the Durand Line now and in the future." The annual payments and weaponry was resumed and these new documents were valid until Amir Habibullah Khan's assassination in 1919.

After the third Anglo-Afghan war, Afghanistan sent a team of diplomats headed by Ali Ahmad Khan, brother-in-law of King Amanullah Khan, to Rawalpindi, British India, on August 8, 1919 to sign a peace treaty with Britain. This team was to act fully on behalf of Afghanistan's new government. A Peace Treaty was signed between the two parties. According to this new treaty, everything Britain had signed with the former governments of Afghanistan was null and void which included the Dane and Durand Treaty; Britain was no longer to provide annual payments and the shipments of weapons to Afghanistan's leaders. However, in regards to the Durand Line, article five of the Peace Treaty recognized the legitimacy of the Durand Line as the accepted border between British India and Afghanistan, as it was recognized and accepted by Amir Habibullah Khan and by Amir Abdur Rahman before him. This was the first official and concrete recognition of the border between the two countries because it was accepted by the independent government of Afghanistan, the one that had fought against Britain, the one that was no longer dependant on Britain for money or weapons.

The Peace Treaty was just as its name suggested – an offering of peace between the warring sides. Article 4 of the Peace Treaty stated that if the new government of Afghanistan acts with sincerity and honesty with Britain for the first six months of the new treaty, the latter will then arrange for a diplomatic envoy to negotiate new accords. These meetings began in January of 1921 by Sir Henry R.C. Dobbs who headed a diplomatic team in Kabul to sign a new treaty as promised. On November 22, 1921, an establishment of commerce and declaration of friendly relations between Great Britain and Afghanistan was signed by Dobbs and Mahmud Tarzai, who was not only King Amanullah Khan's foreign minister but also his father-in-law. Though this 1921 treaty replaced the Peace Treaty it still recognized the Durand Line as the international border between Afghanistan and British India as stated in Article 2 of the new treaty.

Interestingly enough Article 14 of the new agreement maintained that the authority was given to both countries that within three years of the treaty if either side wished to invalidate the treaty or any part of the treaty an official letter may be handed in by the party specifying so. Thus the treaty was signed by representatives of Britain and Afghanistan and within those initial three years and even after when King Amanullah was ousted and forced out of the country, neither side had submitted an official letter stating their dissatisfaction. During Nadir Khan's reign, his brother Shah Wali, serving as Nadir's ambassador in Great Britain, held a meeting in July of 1930 with Anderson Arthur, Britain's foreign minister at that time in which a diplomatic agreement was signed stating that it was their honor to officially declare their understanding and full acceptance of the treaties of 1921 and of 1923.

It is plain to see that many opportunities had arose for the Afghan leaders to officially discredit and invalidate the Durand Line but they failed to do each and every time. Since the late treaty, the border has been internationally recognized and it would be irrelevant to continue to make it an issue today. Some people who act as experts in this field claim that the acceptance of the Durand Line was a price Amanullah Khan had to pay in order to get independence from Britain, that in order for Afghanistan to gain full independence from Great Britain they had to cede all future rights over that particular land. This weak excuse is not enough to discredit the legitimacy of all the documents that prove otherwise.

Some other self-proclaimed experts insist that Amir Abdur Rahman was forced into signing the original treaty which initiated the demarcation; according to such people, Amir Abdur Rahman was threatened by war or under threat of economic embargo and thus obligated to sign therefore nullifying the original treaty. However, the fact of the matter is that when Britain first suggested the demarcation, the Amir could not have been happier because the original intentions of the British were to build roads and railroads linking Kabul and Kandahar to other cities in British India. The Amir did not wish such roads to be built in Afghanistan and excitedly chose to have the demarcation instead.

As for the suggestion that the Amir might have regretted his decision, the original notes and diaries Abdur Rahman were found to show that he was very much satisfied with the treaty. In fact, afterwards, he had a grand party thrown in Kabul, celebrating his achievement on having stopped the British from entering Kabul and thus limiting their interference. To even suggested, now, that the Amir was forced to sign the treaty is preposterous because history has shown that the leaders after him have all signed documents and treaties that honored the original Durand Line agreement and it is unreasonable to think that all those other treaties were made under duress and force as well.

The border can not be changed or invalidated because the VCSSRT (Vienna Convention on Succession of States on Respect of Treaties) "world courts" have universally upheld uti possidetis juris—the concept that binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are "passed down" to successor independent states. Afghanistan can not make the decision to invalidate the Durand Line nor can they spread misinformation that the treaty was only for 100 years. Though the original Durand Treaty did stipulate the conditions of the border on the reign of Amir Abdur Rahman, the fact that all the other leaders after Amir Abdur Rahman signed treaties and accords upholding the recognition of the border legitimized the Durand Line to the point where it no longer depended on the duration of the king's reign. It thus was established as an international border like all of the world's borders.

Today the Durand Line boundary remains in effect as the international boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is recognized as such by most nations. Despite pervasive internet rumors to the contrary, US Department of State and the British Foreign Commonwealth Office documents and spokespersons have confirmed that the Durand Line, like virtually all international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is there any mention of such in any Durand Line documents. Basically, by now trying to take over NWFP and Baluchistan (which constitute over half of Pakistan's territory), the Pashtun nationalists are trying to break up Pakistan. It is unimaginable for Pakistan to give up such property to Afghanistan under any means. Pakistan is a populous state and a strong nation—militarily and economically—as well one of the seven declared nuclear states. Having the nationalistic Pashtuns argue about the Durand Line is not new for Pakistan because they have been over it for half a century but it has become a nuisance. As Pakistan continued to deny the nationalistic Pashtuns' cries for a "Pakhtunistan" or "Greater Afghanistan" by upholding the treaties Britain signed with Afghanistan, relations between the two countries became hostile to the point where Afghanistan's vote was the only one cast against Pakistan's admission to the United Nations in 1947. Afghanistan was also almost taken to the brink of war with Pakistan by the "crazy prince" Daud Khan, who was probably the biggest campaigner of capturing the NWFP.

Other ways of luring the Pakistani Pashtuns to Afghanistan have been employed. Western countries and the Eastern bloc during the Cold War were offering scholarships to the citizens of Afghanistan. The government of Zahir Shah and Daud Khan were distributing these scholarships to Pashtuns—dividing them between the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and the NWFP tribal areas. Non-pashtuns, although an absolute majority in Afghanistan, had no chance of receiving any of those scholarships. Zahir Shah had two schools built in Kabul by the names of Khoshal Khan High School and Rahman Baba High School. These schools were built primarily for the tribal Pashtuns of NWFP. At a time when Afghanistan couldn't even afford to build elementary schools in most parts of the country, the government was shamelessly building unnecessary schools for Pashtuns across the border and bringing them in by the thousands. They hoped the high schools would serve as an opening for the NWFP Pashtuns to become educated in Afghanistan and gain a sense of belonging because for the nationalistic Pashtuns, Afghanistan was the land of Pashtuns. However, once those Pakistani Pashtuns received their education in Afghanistan, they returned back to NWFP as loyal Pakistanis and became a part of the Pakistani establishments. They were opportunistic Pakistani Pashtuns and they just took advantage of the opportunity that was handed to them by Afghanistan's government, milking the country for all it was worth. For the most part of the second half of the twentieth century, the tribal Pashtuns used the government of Afghanistan in any way they could, having them financially cover their education expenses as well as receiving a steady salary from them.

A Ministry of Borders and Tribal Affairs was even established during Zahir Shah's time and exists to this day. This Ministry solely concentrates on the Pakistani border even though Afghanistan shares its borders with five other countries: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and China. The purpose of this Ministry is to give the tribes of the Pashtuns living around that border area a regular salary as well as weapons under the pretense of having them protect the border. Even the Pashtuns on the Pakistan side receive Afghanistani ID cards, a steady salary and weapons for the same purpose. Not surprisingly, 90% of the violence comes from that region. Now, if the government refuses to acknowledge that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan exists, why bother having a Ministry dedicated to it as well as giving money and weapons for its protection?

If the Durand Line treaty is to be invalidated then every other British treaty is to be as well and that would ultimately mean that the name "Afghanistan" would cease to exist. The name "Afghanland" was first mentioned by the British in the Gadamak Treaty, set on May 26, 1879 between Sir Pierre Louis Napolean Cavagnari for the British and Amir Yaqub Khan of the "Afghans." Before that time, the region was known as Khorasan. Even the Pashtun Kings called themselves the Kings/Rulers/Amirs of Khorasan. So therefore, the name "Afghan/Afghanistan" would be just as invalid as the Durand Line. The name of "Afghanistan" has already had its own controversy and adding the Durand Line topic would only serve to the Pashtuns' disadvantage. The region of modern-day Afghanistan was a forceful occupation by Ahmed Shah Abdali and just as the ethno-centric Pashtuns want to claim that the Durand Line is illegal and invalid, one can also argue that Afghanistan's creation was illegal because of the fact that it was land belonging to the Safavids/Samanids which was basically stolen by Abdali and his tribes of Abdali and Gheljai.

Afghanistan being a multi-ethnic country would then have to disband if all notions of borders were dispelled. The British, along with the Russians, have created other borders and set up systematic states. Among them were borders between Iran and Afghanistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan. Logically then, the arguments used to try and invalidate the Durand Line can also be used for those borders. Why should the Pashtun areas of Pakistan be the only areas that have to merge with Afghanistan? The ethnic countries of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan would rightfully lay claim to Tajik, Uzbek and Turkmen lands in Afghanistan and Iran would have rightful claim over the Western parts of Afghanistan. These ethnicities have much stronger claims over those lands because as non-Pashtuns, they would be the ruling majority. Also, why not have the Pashtuns merge with those regions of Pakistan instead of vice versa since the majority of Pashtuns live in Pakistan. It's also noteworthy to point out that the Pashtuns have more in common with Pakistanis than they do with the other ethnicities of Afghanistan: Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc.

Trying to take away NWFP and Baluchistan is wishful thinking for the ethno-centric groups of Pashtuns. Baluchistan is the largest province of Pakistan and there are about six or seven million Baluchis living in that province. As a whole, Baluchis are divided between three countries: Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, 70%, 20%, 10% respectively. Racially, culturally, linguistically, there are no commonalities between the Baluchis and the Pashtuns. So now, who are these nationalistic Pashtuns to decide the fate of the Baluchis especially when they are divided amongst three countries? For their part, the Baluchis have never had any movement to want to break away from Pakistan and join Afghanistan. There might be small groups of fighting with the Pakistani government but they are not fighting for independence but for greater autonomy within the state of Pakistan. Even among the Pakistani Pashtuns, there has been no movement since the creation of Pakistan sixty years ago that would indicate that they want independence or that they even want to join Afghanistan. There has never even been an arms struggle—they only wanted to take advantage of all that Afghanistan was handing over to them, milking the Zahir Shah, Daud Khan, and even communist government. Logically, the Baluchis would not achieve anything by leaving Pakistan and joining Afghanistan. If they truly wanted independence, they would break away from all three countries and start their own state instead of merging with Afghanistan. The ethno-centric groups of Pashtuns, however, feel that they are looking out for the interests of the Baluchis by trying to get them into Afghanistan, where they would still be a minority. Clearly, their best interest is not being looked out for by these nationalistic Pashtuns. In fact, the nationalistic Pashtuns of Afghanistan are strategically going after Baluchistan because that province holds a bit more importance. Baluchistan has coastal areas and is rich with natural resources like petroleum, is not overpopulated, has vast amount of land, making it desirable for the nationalistic Pashtuns of Afghanistan. NWFP, on the other hand is a landlocked province, has no natural resources and is vastly populated with illiterate and tribal people.

The border does, in fact, run through and divides Pashtuns and Baluchis on both sides, but that is true for every ethnic group. In northern Afghanistan, the borders run through and divide Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Turkmen between the countries of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan and in Western Afghanistan, the province of Herat is cut off and separated from Iran. One would not be able to distinguish the differences racially, linguistically, and culturally, between the Heratis and the Khorasan region of Iran, that is how close they are to each other. So nationalistic Pashtuns are not the only group that can claim to be divided by a border. They want to keep the other ethnic groups separate while they merge with other Pashtuns across the border. The ethno-centric groups of Pashtuns do not even consider that the other ethnicities will come up with the idea of tearing down the borders that separate them. In fact, Persian is the binding factor between majority people of Afghanistan, namely the Tajiks and Hazaras, with the neighboring countries of Tajikistan and Iran. And if they even so much as discussed the idea of a cultural reunification let alone a physical merging, the nationalistic Pashtuns would tell them to pack up and move out of Afghanistan altogether. What they don't realize is that those different ethnic groups have settled in the regions for thousands of years and reside in about 75% of the land so it's not likely that they would just pack up and move from country to another. The Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks etc. are not seasonal settlers like the nomadic Pashtuns; if they decide to leave, they will take the land with them.

Another thing is that the non-Pashtuns would never agree or even allow the influx of new Pashtuns onto their land to happen. They would adamantly be against Afghanistan going from 30% Pashtuns to 75% Pashtuns. Afghanistan would fall deeper into despair with larger groups of Pashtuns. The interests of non-Pashtuns would continue to be pushed back and ignored and more of their land would be stolen and given away to the Pakistani Pashtuns. The Afghan Mellat would grow and continue to take advantage of the destitute country and its people to further their agendas. Nationalistic Pashtuns have always forced their goal of Pashtunization unto the country. When not even one third of the country spoke Pashto, the previous Pashtun government still enforced Pashto as an official and national language. They named a major square in Kabul as Pashtunistan Square which refers to the NWFP Province; changed the writings on the currency to Pashto, as well as the writings on passports and the national IDs and also forced businesses in Kabul to change their signs to Pashto, and the governmental and educational institutions to adopt Pashto signs as replacements of the Farsi signs. Think of how much more forms of oppression the non-Pashtuns will face if the nationalistic Pashtuns succeed in bringing more Pashtuns into the country.

Nationalistic Pashtuns of Afghanistan have basically signed the death warrant of Afghanistan and its people with their talks of taking over the NWFP and suspending the Durand Line. It is because of those Pashtuns that Pakistan even began interfering with Afghan politics. As Afghanistan kept threatening to "take" the provinces, Pakistan then had to react and they did so by counterattacking with their own threats via Taliban. Right now, the Durand Line is described as "porous" with little there to stop the terrorists from going back in forth between the regions. Hamed Karzai and his Afghan Mellat advisors need to stop pouting over this issue and take drastic measures in securing the country. They need to accept and acknowledge an internationally-recognized border. They need to start neutralizing those tribal people on their side of the border and stop funding the tribes on the other side of the border.

However, Hamed Karzai's Minster of Borders and Tribal Affairs, Karim Barahowie, (an ethno-centric Pashtun) stood up in Parliament during the swearing-in ceremony and publicly refused to recognize the internationally recognized border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, namely the Durand Line. At the same time, though, Karzai claims that most of the terrorist attacks are initiated by the other side of the Line (a Line he claims not to recognize) and wants Pakistan to step in and control the area. This is a miserable two-sided look at the situation. On one hand, Karzai refuses to acknowledge the Line and, on the other hand, he wants Pakistan to control the territory because he refuses to claim responsibility for those trouble maker tribal people. Those are the Pashtuns Karzai wants to admit into the country and so therefore he should be the one to be held responsible for them.

But it is simple enough: If you do not recognize the border that

separates you from Pakistan, do NOT blame Pakistan for terrorist actions.

When the whole world including the UN acknowledges something as simple as the border that separates Afghanistan and Pakistan and ethno-centric groups of Pashtuns in Afghanistan can not, then the country will never fully recover. Karzai and the ethno-centric Pashtuns groups need to stop thinking emotionally and recognize what is best for the country, instead of what is best just for one minority ethnic group that they descend from. They need to be practical and realize when they are wrong. If not, then the people of Afghanistan will continue to suffer from the Taliban and foreign interference from Pakistan which would lead to the partition of the so called "Afghan"-istan.A name that needs to be changed anyways if the country wants to stay together as present. IQ 150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.114.228 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

some removing from Ancient references

In the Ancient references section we have this paragraph: The Greek historian Herodotus first mentioned a people called Pactyans, living on the eastern frontier of the Persian Satrapy Arachosia as early as the 1st millennium BCE.[19] In addition, the Rig-Veda mentions a tribe called the Pakthas (in the region of Pakhat) inhabiting eastern Afghanistan, and some have speculated that they may have been early ancestors of the Pashtuns.[20] Other ancient peoples linked to the Pashtuns includes the Bactrians who spoke a related Middle Iranian language.

• No doubt these people once living in today's southern Afghanistan were referred to as Pactyans by Herodotus... but how do we know those were Pashtuns? We don't, that's why I removed that sentence.
• I checked the link provided to the Rig-Veda, and it merely mentions the word Pakthas, it doesn't say anything about eastern Afghanistan.
• And the last sentence is unreferenced... though there are references that will relate the Pashto language to the old Bactrian language.

So these are the reasons these 3 sentences were removed. -- Behnam (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to thrust your views to be accepted by deleting so much significant information about Pashtuns by "Herodotus", which had been written thousand of years ago, there might be some authors who have opposed him but on the other hand there are majority of Pashtuns and other non-pashtuns accepted "Pactyans" as today's pashtuns, it is more acceptable to mind as compare to different just imaginary type views, and what is wrong with those brave people of that time, who had fought great wars against Alexander in 327 bc. How come you so sure about the term "Afghan" were Pashtuns, while we didn't see such name in ancient history, the term which you are talking about was not Afghan, according to some historians thse written sentence were first founded on a stone on "Naqsh-e-Rustam" of sasani King "Shahpur first", that was "Gondefra abgan rasmad", still to get the meaning of such sentence - whatever the meaning is but why it has been affixing on Pashtuns, how do you know that Afghans were Pashtuns? According to Frazier Tyler in his book Afghanistan mentioned term afghan (don't know the race), which were further taken from a book "Hudul alam", which had been written by an unknown Geographist in approximately written in 982 AC, hudul alam has also been referenced by different authors aswell, will you avoid an ancient book against hudul alam, which was being written in 982 ac? Pactyans speak Pashto. Do not try to show just one side of the coin, let the readers deside.

Now you will be highly appreciated to take Herodotus and his mentioned Pashtuns back or I will do it myself. Thanks. Haider (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please first provide a source that links Pactyans to Pashtuns. -- Behnam (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kindly look up what I have asked you also about how do you know that abagans are afghans, or you are the one also who believe that Pashtuns have more than half a dozen names bieng rewarded by outsiders like Sulemaini, Khurasani, Afghani - why not just pashtun or pakhtun? Are you sure Qais had four sons, one of them was adopted one right? This article had been rated as featured one with herodotus mentioned pashtuns. Afghanistan is a country and people live in them are afghanis so simple, isn't it? If those people once living in a limited area of the region but what and why to attached them with the great pashtuns? Thanks. Haider (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)