# Pashto words in Urdu



## Braith

Pashtuns have ruled Northern India for centuries , either as independent Sultans, nawabs, or as officers , jagirdars under Turks and Mughals. Deep research has proved that many Pashto words have come into Urdu. In this thread i will share information about such words......


----------



## Braith




----------



## Braith



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Braith



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Braith




----------



## Braith



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Braith




----------



## Braith




----------



## Braith



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

Braith said:


> View attachment 341880



Vilayet and vilayeti is from Arabic word willayah, not from Pashto. And it's only used to refer to the British or Europeans, as far as i know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayet


----------



## Braith

Tergon18 said:


> Vilayet and vilayeti is from Arabic word willayah, not from Pashto. And it's only used to refer to the British or Europeans, as far as i know.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayet


So? the author clearly says that Pathans were referred to as "Wilayati" by Indians...he is not claiming that its pure Pashto word......what he is saying that this word has become part of Urdu, not through Persians, but through Afghans......Also lot of Farsi words, have become part of Urdu through Afghans/Pashtuns, not Iranians.The book has chapters, pure Pashto words in Urdu, borrowed words from Arabic and Farsi which penetrated into Urdu, and common words shared by Pashro and Hindi

In Afghanistan, province or country is called "Wilayat"...and its not a newly termed coined, it has been in usage since medieval times.....Khushal Khan Khattak, for example, refer to country of Ghilzais, as "Wilayat-i-Ghilzai"..........Rohillas used to use word "Wilayat" for their original country and its from them that Wilayati has become part of Urdu with particular meaning.

There are also few others books and research papers on the same subject, which i will share in future


----------



## Tergon18

Braith said:


> Wilayati has become part of Urdu with particular meaning.



In Pakistan atleast, it is only used for the British and Europeans in general. No one uses it for Pashtuns. Not sure about India, though. 'Vilayet' was used for the British state and starting referring to all Europeans. You can google 'vilayeti', references come up only to Europeans/British.


----------



## Braith

Tergon18 said:


> In Pakistan atleast, it is only used for the British and Europeans in general. No one uses it for Pashtuns. Not sure about India, though. 'Vilayet' was used for the British state and starting referring to all Europeans. You can google 'vilayeti', references come up only to Europeans/British.


Read this again


----------



## xyxmt

these are all Farsi words and Pushto has a lot of Farsi words, even more than Urdu. Most of these words are also used in Hindko.


----------



## Braith

xyxmt said:


> these are all Farsi words .


Which one are Farsi words? be specific.

................................


----------



## LadyFinger

Dalta rasha is also an Urdu word.


----------



## xyxmt

Braith said:


> Which one are Farsi words? be specific.
> 
> ................................
> 
> 
> View attachment 342160



dont take it personally, i have nothing against Pushto


----------



## Braith

xyxmt said:


> dont take it personally, i have nothing against Pushto


As if i am taking offense.......which words , that i have shared , are Farsi words? (can you read Urdu script?)


----------



## BelligerentPacifist

People from Hyderabad Daccan as well as some other people from transplanted Pashtun populations that later began speaking Urdu still have inherited words, although few and far between. I've heard a Badayuni say ghaT for big, and Hyderabadis as a routine say aauu for yes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Braith

BelligerentPacifist said:


> People from Hyderabad Daccan as well as some other people from transplanted Pashtun populations that later began speaking Urdu still have inherited words, although few and far between. I've heard a Badayuni say ghaT for big, and Hyderabadis as a routine say aauu for yes.


Very interesting.....Pashtun tribes like Panni and Miyana, did settle in large numbers in Deccan


----------



## Braith




----------



## xyxmt

Braith said:


> View attachment 343042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 343043
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 343044



i dont get it, if pushto was the base of urdu language then why do urdu speakers can understand Punjabi to some extent but can not understand a very basic sentence of Pushto. I am Hindko speaker, my father's village is only a walk away from KPK borders, in this village almost everyone can speak Urdu and their only medium of learning urdu was Radio Pakistan and they speak without any accent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Braith

xyxmt said:


> i dont get it, if pushto was the base of urdu language then why do urdu speakers can understand Punjabi to some extent but can not understand a very basic sentence of Pushto. I am Hindko speaker, my father's village is only a walk away from KPK borders, in this village almost everyone can speak Urdu and their only medium of learning urdu was Radio Pakistan and they speak without any accent.


There are lot of Turki words in Urdu but you dont understand any sentence in Turki......in the same way Farsi passes over your head even though Urdu has very large number of Farsi words


----------



## xyxmt

Braith said:


> View attachment 343845
> 
> 
> 
> There are lot of Turki words in Urdu but you dont understand any sentence in Turki......in the same way Farsi passes over your head even though Urdu has very large number of Farsi words



I can understand 50% of farsi in written form, Turkish words arent as many. you's be surprised to know how close urdu is to farsi once you read anything in farsi


----------



## somebozo

thanks for this useful thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tergon18

Braith said:


> Read this again



Do you think people use 'waleti' for Pashtuns?


----------



## Braith

Tergon18 said:


> Do you think people use 'waleti' for Pashtuns?








*Reference: *The Rise of the Indo-Afghan Empire: C. 1710-1780 - Page 10 by Jos J. L. Gommans

Rohillas , the Indo-Pashtuns of 18th century, popularized the term Wilayat in India as they used to call their Rohilkhand (Western U.P) Wilayat......Urdu Is spoken in Western U.P so from the Rohillas Hindustanis started using the word Wilayat and Wilayati in Urdu with specific context and meaning......With advent of British, the usage of the word got shifted to them who were now the new foreigners while Rohillas had Indianized.....


----------



## Tergon18

Braith said:


> View attachment 343856
> 
> 
> *Reference: *The Rise of the Indo-Afghan Empire: C. 1710-1780 - Page 10 by Jos J. L. Gommans
> 
> Rohillas , the Indo-Pashtuns of 18th century, popularized the term Wilayat in India as they used to call their Rohilkhand (Western U.P) Wilayat......Urdu Is spoken in Western U.P so from the Rohillas Hindustanis started using the word Wilayat and Wilayati in Urdu with specific context and meaning......With advent of British, the usage of the word got shifted to them who were now the new foreigners while Rohillas had Indianized.....



Interesting. So North-Western South Asian territories mentioned here refer to Afghanistan? Btw do Pashtuns use 'wilayati' term for Europeans/British or not?


----------



## Braith

Tergon18 said:


> Interesting. So North-Western South Asian territories mentioned here refer to Afghanistan? Btw do Pashtuns use 'wilayati' term for Europeans/British or not?


No, they dont. In Afghanistan , Wilayati simply means provincial ......same is the meaning of Wilayati in Pashto of Pakistan though usage of word "Subah" is in practice like rest of Pakistan.

Mughals also referred to provinces/regions of North-West as Wilayat e.g Wilayat-i-Kabul, Wilayat-i-Peshawar etc. ..........Khursan and Iran were also called Wilayat by Mughals. The provinces of proper India of Mughal empire were called "Subah" , and its divisions as "Sarkar".......In Pre-Mughal Delhi Sultanates , the term for province was "Iqta".


----------



## Tergon18

Braith said:


> No, they dont. In Afghanistan , Wilayati simply means provincial ......same is the meaning of Wilayati in Pashto of Pakistan though usage of word "Subah" is in practice like rest of Pakistan.
> 
> Mughals also referred to provinces/regions of North-West as Wilayat e.g Wilayat-i-Kabul, Wilayat-i-Peshawar etc. ..........Khursan and Iran were also called Wilayat by Mughals. The provinces of proper India of Mughal empire were called "Subah" , and its divisions as "Sarkar".......In Pre-Mughal Delhi Sultanates , the term for province was "Iqta".
> 
> View attachment 343895



So the word 'بدیسی' badesi, is used for Europeans, as the book says? It also says that 'badesi maal' is referred to as 'wilayati maal' with specific reference to Europeans/British only.


----------



## Avra

Very interesting but not sufficient. There are many other actual pashto words used in urdu are not mentioned like tsatang or tsatal (chatna) pael (pehl) tsaka (chakna) pélwan (pehlwan) garhaei or garhyal (the words are used for watch n clock respectively n are derived from 'grhanj' meaning ringing in pashto). Lagédanna, lagédang or in modern pashto lagedal.


----------



## icebreaker2

Braith said:


> Pashtuns have ruled Northern India for centuries , either as independent Sultans, nawabs, or as officers , jagirdars under Turks and Mughals. Deep research has proved that many Pashto words have come into Urdu. In this thread i will share information about such words......



I take it you identify as a Pashtun. Pashtuns were never conquerors and have mostly been conquered. They came to positions of power in Indus-gangetic plane mostly because they came along with the conquerors and not as conquerors. Secondly most of their descendants are not 'pashtuns' of Khyber pakhtunkhuwa but people who identify as urdu speaking in Pakistan and as pashtun origin populations in India and to a limited extent in Pakistani Punjab and sindh. I am one of them and their history belongs more to me than you as I am their direct ancestor. Just clarifying

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> Secondly most of their descendants are not 'pashtuns' of Khyber pakhtunkhuwa but people who identify as urdu speaking in Pakistan and as pashtun origin populations in India and to a limited extent in Pakistani Punjab and sindh. I am one of them and their history belongs more to me than you as I am their direct ancestor. Just clarifying


MQM-ism and Mohajir-ism of Karachi has nothing to do with Rohillas/Pashtuns of 18th century who were freshly arrived settlers from upper districts of KP. The "Rohilla" identity ceased to exist when they completely lost Pashto language and culture in 19th century. Thats why you wont hear any more about "Rohilla" in second half of 19th century. This has been clarified by the British authors of those times.

Secondly the majority of the ones calling themselves "Pathanis" in Karachi who are associated with MQM, are fake ones and are not descendants of Pashtuns. Saulat Mirza of MQM for example turned from Mirza to Yousafzai at convenience in an interview. In 1947, the low castes migrants from India registered themselves witrh fake castes of Pathan, Mughal, Syed, Sabzawari, Mashadi, Sherazi etc etc

Thirdly , Rohillas kept "chelas" who were their Hindustani slaves (converted Hindus). Chelas also carried Khan surnames and were identified as Rohillas by others due to their masters. Big chunk of Khans in Rohilkhand are descendants of Chelas.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Avra

icebreaker2 said:


> I take it you identify as a Pashtun. Pashtuns were never conquerors and have mostly been conquered. They came to positions of power in Indus-gangetic plane mostly because they came along with the conquerors and not as conquerors. Secondly most of their descendants are not 'pashtuns' of Khyber pakhtunkhuwa but people who identify as urdu speaking in Pakistan and as pashtun origin populations in India and to a limited extent in Pakistani Punjab and sindh. I am one of them and their history belongs more to me than you as I am their direct ancestor. Just clarifying


"Pashtun were never conquerors they were with conquerors" can you actually prove that? Your confidence for such a flat out lie amuses me. The Afghan dynasty is comprised of Pashtun (ethinic Afghans) conquerors of India.
The Durrani tribe of Durrani dynasty, Lodi tribe(it's not lodhi btw) of Lodi dynasty of Multan, Lagah, Sadozai and Babai tribes of Lagah Sadozai and Babai dynasty belonged to Southern areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tribes are still there and speak Pashto.  
Khshegi tribe of Khshegi dynasty, Orakzai of Kurwai dynasty, Barakzai of Barakzai dynasty, Suri rulers, Shinwari of Durrani and Rohilla nawabs belong to the Nothern tribes of Kpk and Afghanistan. And still live there. All of them were Pashtun and still are.
Khushal khan khattak is known for his poetry in pashto language. Pashtuns love his poetry in which he speaks of Pashtun (afghan) ancestors and the tribes of the entire Pashtun nation their (these) conquerors and conquests and rule. And to speak of the second part of your statement; Sassanids, Greeks and Macedonians, Arabs, Mongols, British, Russians and Americans would beg to differ. But let's humour you and let us say that we would love to know about the conquerors who'd actually conquered the Pashtuns, from you.  
Like many other Pakistanis and Indians who lack the basic knowlege of Pashtun history, you think that "Pashtana or Pukhtana" belong only to kpk. Let me clearify it to you that the Pashtuns originally belong to the west of Afghanistan and south Pakistan and east of Iran and have originated from Pahlavi tribe of ancient Iran. Some of the tribes of Nothern areas are actually subtribes of Sothern Pashtun tribes. For e.g Shinwarai is subtribe of Durranai.
As for you and other Pakistanis and Indians being decendant of those conquerors is highly debateable. What are the odds that it can be accepted without genetical proof? None to none. I've seen alot of urdu speaking people who call themselves baig and pasha and claim themselves to be Turks. Without any genetical proof nobody would believe that.
I beleive you are one confused person who doesn't know anything about Afghan dynasty. First you stated that those conquerors were not Pashtuns and then you said Pashtun origin Indians are their direct decendants. Like seriosly? Make up your mind pal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mian Babban

Avra said:


> "Pashtun were never conquerors they were with conquerors" can you actually prove that? Your confidence for such a flat out lie amuses me. The Afghan dynasty is comprised of Pashtun (ethinic Afghans) conquerors of India.
> The Durrani tribe of Durrani dynasty, Lodi tribe(it's not lodhi btw) of Lodi dynasty of Multan, Lagah, Sadozai and Babai tribes of Lagah Sadozai and Babai dynasty belonged to Southern areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tribes are still there and speak Pashto.
> Khshegi tribe of Khshegi dynasty, Orakzai of Kurwai dynasty, Barakzai of Barakzai dynasty, Suri rulers, Shinwari of Durrani and Rohilla nawabs belong to the Nothern tribes of Kpk and Afghanistan. And still live there. All of them were Pashtun and still are.
> Sher shah suri is known for his poetry in pashto language. Pashtuns love his poetry in which he speaks of Pashtun (afghan) ancestors and the tribes of the entire Pashtun nation their conquests and rule. And to speak of the second part of your statement; Sassanids, Greeks and Macedonians, Arabs, Mongols, British, Russians and Americans would beg to differ. But let's humour you and let us say that we would love to know about the conquerors who'd actually conquered the Pashtuns, from you.
> Like many other Pakistanis and Indians who lack the basic knowlege of Pashtun history, you think that "Pashtana or Pukhtana" belong only to kpk. Let me clearify it to you that the Pashtuns originally belong to the west of Afghanistan and south Pakistan and east of Iran and have originated from Pahlavi tribe of ancient Iran. Some of the tribes of Nothern areas are actually subtribes of Sothern Pashtun tribes. For e.g Shinwarai is subtribe of Durranai.
> As for you and other Pakistanis and Indians being decendant of those conquerors is highly debateable. What are the odds that it can be accepted without genetical proof? None to none. I've seen alot of urdu speaking people who call themselves baig and pasha and claim themselves to be Turks. Without any genetical proof nobody would believe that.
> I beleive you are one confused person who doesn't know anything about Afghan dynasty. First you stated that those conquerors were not Pashtuns and then you said Pashtun origin Indians are their direct decendants. Like seriosly? Make up your mind pal.


I know his previous ID, Karachiite or some thing .....a strong MQM supporter living in Canada , claiming to be a "Pathan" , descendant of Yousafzais, yet having disgust and hostility for Pashtuns (Pashto speakers) living in Karachi. Just few days ago some MQM-wala on twitter, claiming to be a Pathan from Naghar tribe, replied in response to my tweet on Sher Shah that "you wasli (?) Pashtuns have nothing to do with Sher Shah, the sons of Sher Shah are in our Mohajir community".........Another such weirdo on facebook, claiming to be a Daudzai from India, was strongly insisting that traditional dress of Daudzais of Peshawar should be dhoti as people in his UP's village wear dhoti not shalwar kameez.....on the same post, another Indian Pathan responded that the villagers of the one claiming to be Daudzai are not genuine Pathans. Confused and cringy bunch

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> I know his previous ID, Karachiite or some thing .....a strong MQM supporter living in Canada , claiming to be a "Pathan" , descendant of Yousafzais, yet having disgust and hostility for Pashtuns (Pashto speakers) living in Karachi. Just few days ago some MQM-wala on twitter, claiming to be a Pathan from Naghar tribe, replied in response to my tweet on Sher Shah that "you wasli (?) Pashtuns have nothing to do with Sher Shah, the sons of Sher Shah are in our Mohajir community".........Another such weirdo on facebook, claiming to be a Daudzai from India, was strongly insisting that traditional dress of Daudzais of Peshawar should be dhoti as people in his UP's village wear dhoti not shalwar kameez.....on the same post, another Indian Pathan responded that the villagers of the one claiming to be Daudzai are not genuine Pathans. Confused and cringy bunch



Buddy, firstly I am not a mqm supporter so get that in your head and I have no hostility to any language speakers in Pakistan. Every Pakistani is dear to me. Secondly the reason i have new i.d. is because i lost the password of the first one and could not recover it. Funny you claim to know my heritage when you know nothing about me. I don't only have pathan heritage but also turik and arab heritage. So do many people who identify as urdu speaking in Pakistan and many muslims in indus-gangetic plain. Many pathans migrated from resource poor places you live in to the plain over the centuries. Yes Sher shah suri family had been living in the indus-gangetic (around delhi and bihar) plain for two generations and he himself was born in Bihar. His descendants continue to live in India and in Pakistan identify as urdu speaking and have nothing to do with pathans in KPK just like the masssive no. of pahans living in Punjab like Imran khan, jhamgir tareen etc. identify as punjabis of pashtun ethnicity. Pathans have moved from the resource poor region over the centuries to the most fertile plain in the world and over the time they no longer associate with the tribals living in KPK and Afghanistan. That is the truth and you need to deal with it


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> over the time they no longer associate with the tribals living in KPK and Afghanistan.


Its because they are no longer Pashtuns just like Qureshis, Syeds, Hashmis etc of Indo-Pak are no longer Arabs


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> MQM-ism and Mohajir-ism of Karachi has nothing to do with Rohillas/Pashtuns of 18th century who were freshly arrived settlers from upper districts of KP. The "Rohilla" identity ceased to exist when they completely lost Pashto language and culture in 19th century. Thats why you wont hear any more about "Rohilla" in second half of 19th century. This has been clarified by the British authors of those times.
> 
> Secondly the majority of the ones calling themselves "Pathanis" in Karachi who are associated with MQM, are fake ones and are not descendants of Pashtuns. Saulat Mirza of MQM for example turned from Mirza to Yousafzai at convenience in an interview. In 1947, the low castes migrants from India registered themselves witrh fake castes of Pathan, Mughal, Syed, Sabzawari, Mashadi, Sherazi etc etc
> 
> Thirdly , Rohillas kept "chelas" who were their Hindustani slaves (converted Hindus). Chelas also carried Khan surnames and were identified as Rohillas by others due to their masters. Big chunk of Khans in Rohilkhand are descendants of Chelas.



No moron they have everything to do with their decedents (many of whom identify as muhajir) and nothing to do with you and your kind who like to glorify their pathetic culture less savage tribal existence. 


"The "Rohilla" identity ceased to exist when they completely lost Pashto language and culture in 19th century. That's why you wont hear any more about "Rohilla" in second half of 19th century."

Well that stands true not just for this batch of Pathans but all pathans, turik, persian and arab dewellers of the region. The muslims of these regions were mainly responsible for creating a central muslim identity in Indian subcontinent which led to the creation of Pakistan. This reinforces my point. Secondly, the identity was created by people of Rohilla and never completely ceased to exist why don't you ask people who inherited this identity rather than making absurd claims 

Mirza Ghalib was of mongol and Turik descent so was Syed ahmed khan, so were the mughals who do you think claims their heritage, moron? people living on Amu darya. Stop trying to claim other peoples heritage you tribal savage and don't try to demean their great heritage by making absurd claims like their heritage is fake. Their family histories are well recorded and well known. They do not identify with tribal savages like you and their ancestors stooped doing that a long time ago including the ancestors of lodhis, sher shah suri and Rohillas. Deal with this fact and stop insulting other people just because the truth does not line up with your narrative. 

"Chelas also carried Khan surnames and were identified as Rohillas by others due to their masters. Big chunk of Khans in Rohilkhand are descendants of Chela" hahaha no 'chelas' caried their surname if you knew anything about how people lived their lives in that region you won't make such absurd claims.

My heritage is from one of the ruling classes of Rohilkand i.e Rampur state and my ancestors were people in important place of power within state machinery both from my grandfather and grand mothers side. Don't make claims about saulat mirza's ancestry when you know nothing about him. Where do you think all the people of pathan descent went after coming to indus-gangetic plains back to your resource poor tribal land to live with the savages? Their descendants live in the millions in India and Pakistan areas out if KPK


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> My heritage is from one of the ruling classes of Rohilkand i.e Rampur state and my ancestors were people in important place of power within state machinery both from my grandfather and grand mothers side.


The rulers of Rampur, the family of Ali Muhammad Khan Rohilla, were Jats by origin. Daud Khan, a run away slave from Pakhtunkhwa, adopted an eight year old Jat boy as his son and named him Ali Muhammad Khan.


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> The rulers of Rampur, the family of Ali Muhammad Khan Rohilla, were Jats by origin. Daud Khan, a run away slave from Pakhtunkhwa, adopted an eight year old Jat boy as his son and named him Ali Muhammad Khan.



Firstly stop reading bs history from barmazid. Secondly Rohillkand was confederation of different Pathan tribes settled in the region who banded together to form Rohilkand. My grandfathers ancestors were from Razzar sub tribe of Yousafzais and not descendants of Daud Khan.


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> Firstly stop reading bs history from barmazid. Secondly Rohillkand was confederation of different Pathan tribes settled in the region who banded together to form Rohilkand. My grandfathers ancestors were from Razzar sub tribe of Yousafzais and not descendants of Daud Khan.


I was pointing out that there were also large number of Indians who got identified as Rohilllas in 18th century. I have already mentioned "chelas".


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> I was pointing out that there were also large number of Indians who got identified as Rohilllas in 18th century. I have already mentioned "chelas".



There were alot of intermarriages among the so called 'ashrafi' class (mostly people of turik,mongol, pathan,persian, mongol, arab, and muslims of 'higher' hindu heritage like rajput (former nobility)etc.) among Muslims in Indian subcontinent. People did not marry people who did not belong to this class. People who traced their male ancestor from a pathan tribe call themselves rohilla and the rest claimed their own heritage from their male ancestors. My grandmother was of Turik & arab descent highly respected by the nawabs as religious figures and were descendants of Hazrat Umar (with heavy pathan ancestory). No one married people into people of lower casts of muslim origin. It was a very classicist society even more so than modern day Pakistan. Would you marry daughter of your house maid?

Secondly as I have made it very clear to you. You are not the direct inheritor of the legacy of Lodhi's, Sher shah suri or any other pathan population in Indus-gangetic plain. Their descendants are and they have a separate and much richer cultural heritage than you and more proud of their ancestors then you are. So why don't you stop leeching on to their legacy and talk about your own legacy of petty tribal warfare


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> Secondly as I have made it very clear to you. You are not the direct inheritor of the legacy of Lodhi's, Sher shah suri or any other pathan population in Indus-gangetic plain. Their descendants are and they have a separate and much richer cultural heritage than you and more proud of their ancestors then you are. So why don't you stop leeching on to their legacy and talk about your own legacy of petty tribal warfare


No one in India can trace his lineage to Sher Shah or Lodi Sultans because their descendants ceased to be Afghans when they lost Pashto language and culture or any other affiliation, and when they lost 'Pashtun character'. They are two basic requisites for being Pashtun, 1-Speaking Pashto, 2- Doing Pashto . There were Pashtun pockets in India who were no longer speaking Pashto as mother tongue but retained the Pashtun identity for quite some time as they were still largely Pashtun in character and were connected with Pakhtunkhwa through horse trade and common interests (e.g Kasur). Niazis of Mianwali and Pannis of Sibi are still Pashtun by outlook and character even though they dont speak Pashto, and they have clans system and customs of Pashtuns. In Baluchistan, those clans of Pashtuns who have lost Pashto, and affiliate themeselves with Balochs, are recognized as Balochs (e.g Raisanis) and those Balochized tribes who affiliate themeselves with Pashtuns politically and in every other aspect, are recognized as Pashtuns (e.g Zarkuns of Kohlu). But the fake Pathanis amongst Urdu speakers in Karachi have nothing to do with all this. They have nothing to do with us or our historical figures. Their baba-i-qaum is Altaf Hussain.

I am from Lohani branch of Lodi tribe and the way i see it, its an Indian like you who has nothing to do with our rulers from Lodi and Sur tribes. The only connection you have with them , is religion. About the Rohillas, i have already clarified that identity completely ceased to exist in later half of 19th century.



icebreaker2 said:


> . My grandmother was of Turik & arab descent highly respected by the nawabs as religious figures and were descendants of Hazrat Umar (with heavy pathan ancestory). No one married people into people of lower casts of muslim origin. It was a very classicist society even more so than modern day Pakistan. Would you marry daughter of your house maid?


These are tall claims but are not based on facts. Pashtuns in India did not give their daughters to the so called low-castes but their men freely married low-caste women including Hindus so that within few generations they looked like any other Indians. For example mother of Sikandar Lodi was a low-caste Hindu (from Goldsmith caste). After continuously marrying Indian women, they became Indians just like Mughals became Indians after generations. Nothing wrong with it as caste system does not exist in Islam.

Another confused person like you is @haviZsultan


----------



## Vishvamitra

Mian Babban said:


> No one in India can trace his lineage to Sher Shah or Lodi Sultans because their descendants ceased to be Afghans when they lost Pashto language and culture or any other affiliation, and when they lost 'Pashtun character'. They are two basic requisites for being Pashtun, 1-Speaking Pashto, 2- Doing Pashto . There were Pashtun pockets in India who were no longer speaking Pashto as mother tongue but retained the Pashtun identity for quite some time as they were still largely Pashtun in character and were connected with Pakhtunkhwa through horse trade and common interests (e.g Kasur). Niazis of Mianwali and Pannis of Sibi are still Pashtun by outlook and character even though they dont speak Pashto, and they have clans system and customs of Pashtuns. In Baluchistan, those clans of Pashtuns who have lost Pashto, and affiliate themeselves with Balochs, are recognized as Balochs (e.g Raisanis) and those Balochized tribes who affiliate themeselves with Pashtuns politically and in every other aspect, are recognized as Pashtuns (e.g Zarkuns of Kohlu). But the fake Pathanis amongst Urdu speakers in Karachi have nothing to do with all this. They have nothing to do with us or our historical figures. Their baba-i-qaum is Altaf Hussain.
> 
> I am from Lohani branch of Lodi tribe and the way i see it, its an Indian like you who has nothing to do with our rulers from Lodi and Sur tribes. The only connection you have with them , is religion. About the Rohillas, i have already clarified that identity completely ceased to exist in later half of 19th century.
> 
> 
> These are tall claims but are not based on facts. Pashtuns in India did not give their daughters to the so called low-castes but their men freely married low-caste women including Hindus so that within few generations they looked like any other Indians. For example mother of Sikandar Lodi was a low-caste Hindu (from Goldsmith caste). After continuously marrying Indian women, they became Indians just like Mughals became Indians after generations. Nothing wrong with it as caste system does not exist in Islam.
> 
> Another confused person like you is @haviZsultan


Saif ali khan is direct descender of Lodhi royal dynasty AFAIK.


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> No one in India can trace his lineage to Sher Shah or Lodi Sultans because their descendants ceased to be Afghans when they lost Pashto language and culture or any other affiliation, and when they lost 'Pashtun character'. They are two basic requisites for being Pashtun, 1-Speaking Pashto, 2- Doing Pashto . There were Pashtun pockets in India who were no longer speaking Pashto as mother tongue but retained the Pashtun identity for quite some time as they were still largely Pashtun in character and were connected with Pakhtunkhwa through horse trade and common interests (e.g Kasur). The Urdu speakers in Karachi who call themselves Pathanis, have nothing to do Pashtuns or their historical figures. Their baba-i-qaum is Altaf Hussain.
> 
> I am from Lohani branch of Lodi tribe and the way i see it, its an Indian like you who has nothing to do with our rulers from Lodi and Sur tribes. The only connection you have with them , is religion. About the Rohillas, i have already clarified that identity completely ceased to exist in later half of 19th century.
> 
> 
> These are tall claims but are not based on facts. Pashtuns in India did not give their daughters to the so called low-castes but their men freely married low-caste women including Hindus so that within few generations they looked like any other Indians. For example mother of Sikandar Lodi was a low-caste Hindu (from Goldsmith caste)



Hahaha as if you know. Lodhi's, Sher shah suri etc. and their descendents were not part of any tribal pashtun culture like your's and changed their life style centuries ago. Their descendants don't identify with your pathetic lifestyle and neither did they. They were part and parcel of ashrafi culture in India along with people of turik descent and looked down on tribals like you. That's why their descendants evolved Urdu and created Pakistan. They do not and never did consider you equal. How dare you call me Indian, tribal pashtun? My ancestors built this country, how can you have a claim on it when i don't. If you don't like Pakistan why don't you join your opmium addicted brothers in Afghanistan.

Again with your claim you are making up absolute bullshit. I already told you how the ashrafis married in medieval India and it is a historical fact and well recorded. They kept no connections with tribal like you.

Buddy these are not tall claims. From my fathers side family of my grandfather is from the family of nawabs of Hyderabad deccan who are siddiqis of turik descent, grandmother(fathers side) is from the paigha family (prime ministers to nawabs of hyderabad) and syeds of turik descent. From mothers side my grandmother's grandfather was a renowned scholar and maulana shibli Nomani was one of his students. His name was also mentioned by him recorded in matric book in Pakistan some time ago. My maternal grandfather's grandfather was the chief military(police) officer of Rampur state.

Here's some history on bhalul lodhi. He had nothing to do with you tribals and was part of ashrafi culture in medieval India

*Bahlul Lodi*
Bahlul Khan Lodi (r.1451–89) was the nephew and son-in-law of Malik Sultan Shah Lodi, the governor of Sirhind in (Punjab), India and succeeded him as the governor of Sirhind during the reign of Sayyid dynasty ruler Muhammad Shah (Muhammad-bin-Farid). Muhammad Shah raised him to the status of an emir. He was the most powerful of the Punjab chiefs and a vigorous leader, holding together a loose confederacy of Afghan and Turkish chiefs with his strong personality.[3] He reduced the turbulent chiefs of the provinces to submission and infused some vigour into the government.[_citation needed_] After the last Sayyid ruler of Delhi, Ala-ud-Din Aalm Shah voluntarily abdicated in favour of him, Bahlul Khan Lodi ascended the throne of the Delhi sultanate on 19 April 1451.[4] The most important event of his reign was the conquest of Jaunpur.[_citation needed_] Bahlul spent most of his time in fighting against the Sharqi dynasty and ultimately annexed it. He placed his eldest surviving son Barbak on the throne of Jaunpur in 1486.[_citation needed_]


----------



## Mian Babban

Vishvamitra said:


> Saif ali khan is direct descender of Lodhi royal dynasty AFAIK.



Which is a fake claim made by his father (in the interview he did not claim to be from royal house of Lodi but from one of the noble serving the royals). They are actually descendants of Barech Pashtuns who migrated to India in late 18th century and dispossessed Baloch nawabs of Hariana from their jagirs. They were confirmed in their possessions by East India Company who have recorded all details about Pataudi and other estates.



icebreaker2 said:


> Hahaha as if you know. Lodhi's, Sher shah suri etc. and their descendents were not part of any tribal pashtun culture your's and changed their life style centuries ago. Their descendants don't identify with your pathetic lifestyle and neither did they. They were part and parcel of ashrafi culture in India along with people of turik descent and looked down on tribals like you


Its your ignorance speaking. Bahlul Lodi and Farid Khan Sur were parts of extensive clan systems of Pashtuns, thats why they were able to summon their tribesmen from Pakhtunkhwa whenever the occasion demanded. Bahlul Lodi was from Shahu Khel branch of Prangi tribe which was then settled at Daman and Farid Khan was from Shera Khel branch of Sur tribe who were then settled on the banks of Gomal river. Both were Pashto speakers and strong Pashtun-ists. They had not arrived from Pakhtunkhwa "centuries" ago. Bahlul's grandfather and Sher Shah's father (accompanying his grandfather) migrated from Pakhtunkhwa. They were tribals and in fact were looked down upon by urbanized and Persianized Turks of India because of their tribal life style and crude ways . Read their histories










> Buddy these are not tall claims. From my fathers side family of my grandfather is from the family of nawabs of Hyderabad deccan who are siddiqis of turik descent, grandmother(fathers side) is from the paigha family (prime ministers to nawabs of hyderabad) and syeds of turik descent. From mothers side my grandmother's grandfather was a renowned scholar and maulana shibli Nomani was one of his students. His name was also mentioned by him recorded in matric book in Pakistan some time ago. My maternal grandfather's grandfather was the chief military(police) officer of Rampur state.


Good for you. Still you and your family has nothing to do with us and our history


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> Which is a fake claim made by his father (in the interview he did not claim to be from royal house of Lodi but from one of the noble serving the royals). They are actually descendants of Barech Pashtuns who migrated to India in late 18th century and dispossessed Baloch nawabs of Hariana from their jagirs. They were confirmed in their possessions by East India Company who have recorded all details about Pataudi and other estates.
> 
> 
> Its your ignorance speaking. Bahlul Lodi and Farid Khan Sur were parts of extensive clan systems of Pashtuns, thats why they were able to summon their tribesmen from Pakhtunkhwa whenever the occasion demanded. Bahlul Lodi was from Shahu Khel branch of Prangi tribe which was then settled at Daman and Farid Khan was from Shera Khel branch of Sur tribe who were then settled on the banks of Gomal river. Both were Pashto speakers and strong Pashtun-ists. They had not arrived from Pakhtunkhwa "centuries" ago. Bahlul's grandfather and Sher Shah's father (accompanying his grandfather) migrated from Pakhtunkhwa. They were tribals and in fact were looked down upon by urbanized and Persianized Turks of India for their tribal life style and crude ways. Read their histories
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you. Still you and your family has nothing to do with us and our history



What a stupid conclusion to draw from a passage in a book. It's just narrating the story of rivalry between two groups at odd. when babur came to India he called the Lodhis and other Pathan tribes of northern India Hindustanis. That is how much they were part and parcel of the ruling ashrafi class 
*
Sikander Lodi* (died 21 November 1517), born *Nizam Khan*, was the Sultan of Delhi between 1489 to 1517.[1] He became the next ruler of the Lodi dynasty after the death of his father Bahlul Lodi in July 1489.[2][3] The second and most successful ruler of the Lodi dynasty of the Delhi sultanate, *he was also a poet of the Persian language and prepared a diwan of 9000 verse*s.[4] Of the three Lodi Sultans namely Bahlol Lodi (1451 to 1489), Sikandar Lodi (1489 to 1517) and Ibrahim Lodi (1517 to 1526), Sikandar Lodi is regarded as the ablest, the greatest and the most successful Sultan.[5]

Again absolute and utter bs propagated by you. They were part and parcel of Ashrafi culture in India. They spoke persian like the rest of them, administered in persian and had nothing to do with pakhtun nationalism(no such thing exsisted). In fact many of their opponents were also of Pashtun origin. As far as them calling for soldiers from tribal areas. So did the mughals and other empires. That does not mean your narrative is correct. Stop propagating your twisted sense of history and trying to claim other peoples heritage 

Do you suffer from a mental illness. Claiming a pathan is someone who speaks pashto bla bla and then claiming lodhis to be pashtun when they spoke persian and gave no consideration to marrying in accordance with the tribal mariage customs. 
*
Sikandar (the second ruler of lodhi dynasty) was the son of Sultan Bahlul Khan Lodi and Bibi Ambha, *the daughter of a Hindu goldsmith of Sirhind. I don't think you 'koain kay maindak' traditionally marry outside of your tribe. 

*Among the administrative changes made by Sikandar Lodi was the installation of Persian language as the official language for the accountancy in India.* 1514. Mat̲nawī-yi mihr u māh (905H.). Publication of the Iran Pakistan Institute of Persian Studies, serial no.

Taking one or two odd examples from here and there won't prove your point buddy (That also includes how marriage was conducted in medieval ashrafi muslim society). You are neither their descendant nor were any tribals like you part of any power structure in medieval India. All these people of pashtun origion married within the power structure of India (ashrafi class), spoke the language of that culture(persian and urdu), identified with them and so do their descendants just like they did. Saying that Lodhi dynasty had more in common with dirt poor tribes on Pak-Afghan border and Afghanistan and not with the ruling class of Muslims in India (i.e where they spent their lives) is as stupid a argument as I have ever heard

Is Imran Khan more connected with you tribal culture or the culture of Lahore and southern Punjab? Same applies to every person. They are where they live or after a few hundered years you want to also call him a pashtun tribal and claim all his cricket stats as that of the great poverty ridden, resource poor, uneducated tribals.



icebreaker2 said:


> What a stupid conclusion to draw from a passage in a book. It's just narrating the story of rivalry between two groups at odd. when babur came to India he called the Lodhis and other Pathan tribes of northern India Hindustanis. That is how much they were part and parcel of the ruling ashrafi class
> *
> Sikander Lodi* (died 21 November 1517), born *Nizam Khan*, was the Sultan of Delhi between 1489 to 1517.[1] He became the next ruler of the Lodi dynasty after the death of his father Bahlul Lodi in July 1489.[2][3] The second and most successful ruler of the Lodi dynasty of the Delhi sultanate, *he was also a poet of the Persian language and prepared a diwan of 9000 verse*s.[4] Of the three Lodi Sultans namely Bahlol Lodi (1451 to 1489), Sikandar Lodi (1489 to 1517) and Ibrahim Lodi (1517 to 1526), Sikandar Lodi is regarded as the ablest, the greatest and the most successful Sultan.[5]
> 
> Again absolute and utter bs propagated by you. They were part and parcel of Ashrafi culture in India. They spoke persian like the rest of them, administered in persian and had nothing to do with pakhtun nationalism(no such thing exsisted). In fact many of their opponents were also of Pashtun origin. As far as them calling for soldiers from tribal areas. So did the mughals and other empires. That does not mean your narrative is correct. Stop propagating your twisted sense of history and trying to claim other peoples heritage
> 
> Do you suffer from a mental illness. Claiming a pathan is someone who speaks pashto bla bla and then claiming lodhis to be pashtun when they spoke persian and gave no consideration to marrying in accordance with the tribal mariage customs.
> *
> Sikandar (the second ruler of lodhi dynasty) was the son of Sultan Bahlul Khan Lodi and Bibi Ambha, *the daughter of a Hindu goldsmith of Sirhind. I don't think you 'koain kay maindak' traditionally marry outside of your tribe.
> 
> *Among the administrative changes made by Sikandar Lodi was the installation of Persian language as the official language for the accountancy in India.* 1514. Mat̲nawī-yi mihr u māh (905H.). Publication of the Iran Pakistan Institute of Persian Studies, serial no.
> 
> Taking one or two odd examples from here and there won't prove your point buddy (That also includes how marriage was conducted in medieval ashrafi muslim society). You are neither their descendant nor were any tribals like you part of any power structure in medieval India. All these people of pashtun origion married within the power structure of India (ashrafi class), spoke the language of that culture(persian and urdu), identified with them and so do their descendants just like they did. Saying that Lodhi dynasty had more in common with dirt poor tribes on Pak-Afghan border and Afghanistan and not with the ruling class of Muslims in India (i.e where they spent their lives) is as stupid a argument as I have ever heard
> 
> Is Imran Khan more connected with you tribal culture or the culture of Lahore and southern Punjab? Same applies to every person. They are where they live or after a few hundered years you want to also call him a pashtun tribal and claim all his cricket stats as that of the great poverty ridden, resource poor, uneducated tribals.



Here you go one of his descendants. Why don't you go and tell him he is a tribal pashtun. though you are free to claim him 
*
Sahir Lodhi* is a Pakistan actor, director and tv host.[1] he is an actor of a movie.[2]

*Personal life*
Sahir Lodhi was born in Karachi to Ali Gohar Lodhi and Roshan Taj Lodhi. He grew up in a family with two brothers and one sister Shaista Lodhi


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> *Among the administrative changes made by Sikandar Lodi was the installation of Persian language as the official language for the accountancy in India.* 1514. Mat̲nawī-yi mihr u māh (905H.). Publication of the Iran Pakistan Institute of Persian Studies, serial no.


Persian language was lingua franca of entire Central Asia and South Asia. In case you dont know Persian was also official language of native Durrani empire. It was also official language of Sikh empire even though they were not Muslims. Sikandar Lodi, even if his mother was an Indian, identified himself as Afghan, not some "Ashrafi Indian" of your imagination.


----------



## icebreaker2

icebreaker2 said:


> What a stupid conclusion to draw from a passage in a book. It's just narrating the story of rivalry between two groups at odd. when babur came to India he called the Lodhis and other Pathan tribes of northern India Hindustanis. That is how much they were part and parcel of the ruling ashrafi class
> *
> Sikander Lodi* (died 21 November 1517), born *Nizam Khan*, was the Sultan of Delhi between 1489 to 1517.[1] He became the next ruler of the Lodi dynasty after the death of his father Bahlul Lodi in July 1489.[2][3] The second and most successful ruler of the Lodi dynasty of the Delhi sultanate, *he was also a poet of the Persian language and prepared a diwan of 9000 verse*s.[4] Of the three Lodi Sultans namely Bahlol Lodi (1451 to 1489), Sikandar Lodi (1489 to 1517) and Ibrahim Lodi (1517 to 1526), Sikandar Lodi is regarded as the ablest, the greatest and the most successful Sultan.[5]
> 
> Again absolute and utter bs propagated by you. They were part and parcel of Ashrafi culture in India. They spoke persian like the rest of them, administered in persian and had nothing to do with pakhtun nationalism(no such thing exsisted). In fact many of their opponents were also of Pashtun origin. As far as them calling for soldiers from tribal areas. So did the mughals and other empires. That does not mean your narrative is correct. Stop propagating your twisted sense of history and trying to claim other peoples heritage
> 
> Do you suffer from a mental illness. Claiming a pathan is someone who speaks pashto bla bla and then claiming lodhis to be pashtun when they spoke persian and gave no consideration to marrying in accordance with the tribal mariage customs.
> *
> Sikandar (the second ruler of lodhi dynasty) was the son of Sultan Bahlul Khan Lodi and Bibi Ambha, *the daughter of a Hindu goldsmith of Sirhind. I don't think you 'koain kay maindak' traditionally marry outside of your tribe.
> 
> *Among the administrative changes made by Sikandar Lodi was the installation of Persian language as the official language for the accountancy in India.* 1514. Mat̲nawī-yi mihr u māh (905H.). Publication of the Iran Pakistan Institute of Persian Studies, serial no.
> 
> Taking one or two odd examples from here and there won't prove your point buddy (That also includes how marriage was conducted in medieval ashrafi muslim society). You are neither their descendant nor were any tribals like you part of any power structure in medieval India. All these people of pashtun origion married within the power structure of India (ashrafi class), spoke the language of that culture(persian and urdu), identified with them and so do their descendants just like they did. Saying that Lodhi dynasty had more in common with dirt poor tribes on Pak-Afghan border and Afghanistan and not with the ruling class of Muslims in India (i.e where they spent their lives) is as stupid a argument as I have ever heard
> 
> Is Imran Khan more connected with you tribal culture or the culture of Lahore and southern Punjab? Same applies to every person. They are where they live or after a few hundered years you want to also call him a pashtun tribal and claim all his cricket stats as that of the great poverty ridden, resource poor, uneducated tribals.
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go one of his descendants. Why don't you go and tell him he is a tribal pashtun. though you are free to claim him
> *
> Sahir Lodhi* is a Pakistan actor, director and tv host.[1] he is an actor of a movie.[2]
> 
> *Personal life*
> Sahir Lodhi was born in Karachi to Ali Gohar Lodhi and Roshan Taj Lodhi. He grew up in a family with two brothers and one sister Shaista Lodhi



And kid read below to get a good reference on Medieval politics before claiming they were pasthun nationalist of some kind 

He gained control of Bihar and founded the modern city of Agra on the site known as Sikandarabad. His reign was clouded only by a reputation for religious bigotry. Sikandar’s eldest son, Ibrāhīm (reigned 1517–26), attempted to enhancethe royal authority. His harshness built up discontent, *however, which led the governor of the Punjab, Dawlat Khan Lodī, to invite the Mughal ruler of Kabul, Bābur, to invade India*


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> W
> *
> Sahir Lodhi* is a Pakistan actor, director and tv host.[1] he is an actor of a movie.[2]
> 
> *Personal life*
> Sahir Lodhi was born in Karachi to Ali Gohar Lodhi and Roshan Taj Lodhi. He grew up in a family with two brothers and one sister Shaista Lodhi


The hijrra Mairasi has nothing to do with us Lodis. He must be a convert from "Lodha caste" of Hindus. The Lodi Sultans called themselves "Lodi" not "Lodhi"


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> Persian language was lingua franca of entire Central Asia and South Asia. In case you dont know Persian was also official language of native Durrani empire. It was also official language of Sikh empire even though they were not Muslims. Sikandar Lodi, even if his mother was an Indian, identified himself as Afghan, not some "Ashrafi Indian" of your imagination.



Yeah, I know that very well and over time it was replaced by Urdu. Yeah he identified with his pashtun/afghan ancestry so do millions of people but they don't identify with you or your way of life or tribal pashtuns . So don't try to claim them. If they were to fit your criteria of pashtun(i.e how you describe tribal pashtun) we all would be speaking pashto not urdu



Mian Babban said:


> The hijrra Mairasi has nothing to do with us Lodis. He must be a convert from "Lodha caste" of Hindus. The Lodi Sultans called themselves "Lodi" not "Lodhi"



No he is not a convert from any lodhi caste of Hindus. He is a lodi from what i know. Anyways open your eyes. You will find many many lodis in Punjab and in Karachi and India who are descendants from lodis who ruled over dehli (Many of them even gave up their tribal names because they no longer care). Get out of your little tribal identity and backward mentality and stop trying to glorifying your bunch of tribe. Their only importance is limited to little municipal elections and seats in NA & PA.

You are free to claim this hijjra marasi as your own but i doubt you are short of hijra marassi in your tribe. Nothing special about your tribe's people they are people just like any one else.

Don't muddle up history with your sense of pashtun nationalism and false, racist, ignorant pride. No one ever has claimed that pathan chieftans in India were culturally associated with tribes of KPK. They were part of the ruling elite (ashrafi class), ate with them, spoke the same language as them, married them and lived with them. Their descendants still live among us as representative of their culture and how it evolved


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> Get out of your little tribal identity and backward mentality and stop trying to glorifying your bunch of tribe. Their only importance is limited to little municipal elections and seats in NA & PA.


Whatever. Why you link yourself with us and our past?



> You are free to claim this hijjra marasi as your own


Sahir Lodha and Shaista Lodhan belongs to your ethnicity, they have nothing to do with us.



> Don't muddle up history with your sense of pashtun nationalism and false, racist, ignorant pride. No one ever has claimed that pathan chieftans in India were culturally associated with tribes of KPK.


From Tarikh-i-SherShahi

"His chiefs replied: “ It is expedient under present circumstances that His Majesty the Sultán should send letters to the chiefs of the tribes in the Roh country (a medieval name of Pakhtunkhwa) to this effect: ‘God in his goodness has granted the kingdom of Dehlí to the Afgháns, but the other kings of Hind wish to expel them from the country. The honour of our women is concerned; the lands of Hind are broad and rich, and can afford maintenance to many. Come, then, to this country; the name indeed of sovereignty shall remain with me, but whatever countries we may conquer shall be shared between us as brothers. Sultán Mahmúd of Jaunpúr is now besieging Dehlí, where the families of the Afgháns are. If you feel disposed to assist me, you must do so now, and with a large force.’” The king, approving of this advice, issued _farmáns_ to the chiefs of the various Afghán tribes. On receipt of the _farmáns_, the Afgháns of Roh came, as is their wont, like ants and locusts, to enter the king's service........

........When the chiefs of the tribes of Roh had gone, the king commanded his nobles, saying:—“Every Afghán who comes to Hind from the country of Roh to enter my service, bring him to me. I will give him a _jágír_ more than proportioned to his deserts, and such as shall content him; but if he for reasons of kindred or friendship prefers remaining in the service of any one of you, do you provide for him to his satisfaction; for if I hear of one Afghán from Roh returning thither again for want of a livelihood or employment, I will resume the _jágírs_ of that noble who may have refused to entertain him.” When the Afgháns of Roh heard of this, and saw the favour and affection of the king towards them, they began every day, every month, and every year, to arrive in Hind, and received _jágírs_ to their heart's content.


----------



## StraightShooter

BelligerentPacifist said:


> People from Hyderabad Daccan as well as some other people from transplanted Pashtun populations that later began speaking Urdu still have inherited words, although few and far between. I've heard a Badayuni say ghaT for big, and Hyderabadis as a routine say aauu for yes.



As a deccan hyderabadi I would say aauu mia to that 

Watch how my beloved hyderabadi friends speak.


----------



## Imad.Khan

Braith said:


> Very interesting.....Pashtun tribes like Panni and Miyana, did settle in large numbers in Deccan



I have never heard of these tribes, are these tribes found in Pakistan as well?


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> Whatever. Why you link yourself with us and our past?
> 
> 
> Sahir Lodha and Shaista Lodhan belongs to your ethnicity, they have nothing to do with us.
> 
> 
> From Tarikh-i-SherShahi
> 
> "His chiefs replied: “ It is expedient under present circumstances that His Majesty the Sultán should send letters to the chiefs of the tribes in the Roh country (a medieval name of Pakhtunkhwa) to this effect: ‘God in his goodness has granted the kingdom of Dehlí to the Afgháns, but the other kings of Hind wish to expel them from the country. The honour of our women is concerned; the lands of Hind are broad and rich, and can afford maintenance to many. Come, then, to this country; the name indeed of sovereignty shall remain with me, but whatever countries we may conquer shall be shared between us as brothers. Sultán Mahmúd of Jaunpúr is now besieging Dehlí, where the families of the Afgháns are. If you feel disposed to assist me, you must do so now, and with a large force.’” The king, approving of this advice, issued _farmáns_ to the chiefs of the various Afghán tribes. On receipt of the _farmáns_, the Afgháns of Roh came, as is their wont, like ants and locusts, to enter the king's service........
> 
> ........When the chiefs of the tribes of Roh had gone, the king commanded his nobles, saying:—“Every Afghán who comes to Hind from the country of Roh to enter my service, bring him to me. I will give him a _jágír_ more than proportioned to his deserts, and such as shall content him; but if he for reasons of kindred or friendship prefers remaining in the service of any one of you, do you provide for him to his satisfaction; for if I hear of one Afghán from Roh returning thither again for want of a livelihood or employment, I will resume the _jágírs_ of that noble who may have refused to entertain him.” When the Afgháns of Roh heard of this, and saw the favour and affection of the king towards them, they began every day, every month, and every year, to arrive in Hind, and received _jágírs_ to their heart's content.




Yes and that proves nothing. Every ruler in India has gained allies like this. That is how Rohilla pathan came to India under Aurangzeb(They were given land). Shah jehan did the same for the Persian governor of Herat(modern term) who defected. He must have also written similar letters invoking commonality with other allies of his. Why don't you post those too.

When babur came to India he broke all his drinking vessels to make him self look like the muslim warrior fighting against Hindus. He did the same lying to them that other sultans want to push out Afghans when in fact there were different Afghan factions fighting him too. It is not much different to what politicians say when they go somewhere to get a vote.

Sher shah Suri was desperate for allies and that's why he called for these people and people and tribes of roh were irrelevant to his rule. Just another drop in the bucket. Another point to note he never mentions any tribes. In your tribal badlands people identify each other with their tribes as they did back then. He does not distinguish between the tribes as friends or enemies. Only refers to them as afghans. Sher sha suri had no connection with roh. He was born in Bihar so was his father. Don't know why a tribal savage like you is claiming the heritage of a pathan from Bihar. It is the heritage of these people

*Pathans in Bihar*

Pathan/Pashtun
*Regions with significant populations*
India
*Languages*
Bhojpuri • Hindustani
*Religion*
Islam 100%
*Related ethnic groups*
Pashtun
The *Pathans of Bihar* in India are said to have settled in the region from the 13th century CE onwards. These Pashtun people are known as _Pathan_ in the Hindustani language. Another common name for the community is Khan, which also a common surname. Lohani Pashtuns ruled a princely state within Bihar.[1]

The name Pathan in Bihar refers to two distinct but related communities, the Nasli (from the Arabic word _nasl_, meaning racial or by birth) and Divani (from the Arabic word _diwan_, meaning a royal court). The former are descendents of various Pashtun settlers in Bihar, while the latter are Rajput and Bhumihar converts to Islam.[2] They are considered one of the Ashraf communities meaning they have a powerful status among the Muslims of the state.[3] Ruhella Pathans are significant landowners in the southern part of the state and formed a militia with Rajputs called the Sunlight Sena to combat Maoist insurgents.[4]

Sher Shah Suri was born in Rohtas district.[5]

*Present circumstances[edit]*
The Pathan proper of Bihar belong to eleven sub-groups, the main ones being the Suri, Sherwani, Yousafzai, Durani, Bangash, Afridi, Khattak, Lodhi, Tanoli, Orakzai and Ghori, all of whom are well known Pashtun tribes. They now speak Hindustani as well as local dialects such as Awadhi and Bhojpuri. Like other communities in the region, the Pathan are endogamous, and tend to marry close kin. They practice both parallel cousin and cross cousin marriages. Those who live in the larger cities, such as Patna have begun to marry other Bihari Muslims, and a process of assimilation into the wider Bihari Muslim community has begun.[6]


Pulling out random letters you have plucked out of somewhere without context as I have explained to you before cannot change history. Your history with the people mentioned above diverged when they left you savages to rot in poverty. They became kings and you poppers. So why are you poppers trying to claim the history of people who survive till this date? It will be like Uzbek claiming the Mughals

A passage from Tarikh-i-SherShahi is not going to fool me buddy. Your dishonest posting of passages from historical texts is not going to help you fool me buddy. Who they were was reflected by how they lived their lives and they were not tribal pashtuns just like Imran Khan is not one.

No one is linking with your past moron. Who would want to associate with you savage culture less tribal. They are linking with their own past. Histories diverged when these people came to India and now their descendants know you as tribal savages. So don't try to claim them as yours



Mian Babban said:


> Whatever. Why you link yourself with us and our past?
> 
> 
> Sahir Lodha and Shaista Lodhan belongs to your ethnicity, they have nothing to do with us.
> 
> 
> They don't belong to my ethnicity dumb dumb. I and them have the same linguistic based identity. I am sure any decent human being wouldn't like to be associated with a moron like you and say high to all the hijra and marasi tribal lohanis from me. They desreve it they are human too. Consider it charity


----------



## Mian Babban

Imad.Khan said:


> I have never heard of these tribes, are these tribes found in Pakistan as well?


The Pashtuns of Sibi district of Baluchistan are mostly Panni (pronounced as Panri in Pashto). The Musa Khel tribe of Musa Khel district in Baluchistan are also Pannis. The other famous branches of Pannis who settled elsewhere are Safis of Mohmand agency, Laghman etc (you must know journalist Salim Safi), and Jadoons (or Gadoons) of Swabi and Abbotabad.

Majority of the Miyanas (pronounced as Miarna in Pashto) migrated to India. The remnants of Miyanas are in Baluchistan and are represented by sub-tribes Lunis, Jafars, Zmaraey and Isots.



icebreaker2 said:


> Yes and that proves nothing. Every ruler in India has gained allies like this. That is how Rohilla pathan came to India under Aurangzeb(They were given land). Shah jehan did the same for the Persian governor of Herat(modern term) who defected. He must have also written similar letters invoking commonality with other allies of his. Why don't you post those too.
> 
> When babur came to India he broke all his drinking vessels to make him self look like the muslim warrior fighting against Hindus. He did the same lying to them that other sultans want to push out Afghans when in fact there were different Afghan factions fighting him too. It is not much different to what politicians say when they go somewhere to get a vote.
> 
> Sher shah Suri was desperate for allies and that's why he called for these people and people and tribes of roh were irrelevant to his rule. Just another drop in the bucket. Another point to note he never mentions any tribes. In your tribal badlands people identify each other with their tribes as they did back then. He does not distinguish between the tribes as friends or enemies. Only refers to them as afghans. Sher sha suri had no connection with roh. He was born in Bihar so was his father. Don't know why a tribal savage like you is claiming the heritage of a pathan from Bihar. It is the heritage of these people


Perhaps you were drowsy or some thing, the passage was not about Sher Shah but about Sultan Bahlul Lodi inviting Afghan tribes of Roh to assist him against Sharqi Sultan in 1453.

About Sher Shah, read this extract from Tarikh-i-SherShahi for enlightenment ;

"To every pious Afghán who came into his presence from Afghánistán, Sher Sháh used to give money to an amount exceeding his expectations, and he would say, “This is your share of the kingdom of Hind, which has fallen into my hands, this is assigned to you, come every year to receive it.” And to his own tribe and family of Súr, who dwelt in the land of Roh, he sent an annual stipend in money, in proportion to the numbers of his family and retainers; and during the period of his dominion no Afghán, whether in Hind or Roh, was in want, but all became men of substance. It was the custom of the Afgháns during the time of Sultáns Bahlol and Sikandar, and as long as the dominion of the Afgháns lasted, that if any Afghán received a sum of money, or a dress of honour, that sum of money or dress of honour was regularly apportioned to him, and he received it every year."

"


----------



## khanasifm

Urdu was official /military language based on Persian, pushto, Arabic, Hindi etc so there are words from many languages


----------



## Proudpakistaniguy

@Mian Babban What is your old ID? 

I am sure you made this fourth/fifth ID after getting banned previously with these IDs

@Marwat Khan Lodhi @Samandri @Pak-one


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> The Pashtuns of Sibi district of Baluchistan are mostly Panni (pronounced as Panri in Pashto). The Musa Khel tribe of Musa Khel district in Baluchistan are also Pannis. The other famous branches of Pannis who settled elsewhere are Safis of Mohmand agency, Laghman etc (you must know journalist Salim Safi), and Jadoons (or Gadoons) of Swabi and Abbotabad.
> 
> Majority of the Miyanas (pronounced as Miarna in Pashto) migrated to India. The remnants of Miyanas are in Baluchistan and are represented by sub-tribes Lunis, Jafars, Zmaraey and Isots.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you were drowsy or some thing, the passage was not about Sher Shah but about Sultan Bahlul Lodi inviting Afghan tribes of Roh to assist him against Sharqi Sultan in 1453.
> 
> About Sher Shah, read this extract from Tarikh-i-SherShahi for enlightenment ;
> 
> "To every pious Afghán who came into his presence from Afghánistán, Sher Sháh used to give money to an amount exceeding his expectations, and he would say, “This is your share of the kingdom of Hind, which has fallen into my hands, this is assigned to you, come every year to receive it.” And to his own tribe and family of Súr, who dwelt in the land of Roh, he sent an annual stipend in money, in proportion to the numbers of his family and retainers; and during the period of his dominion no Afghán, whether in Hind or Roh, was in want, but all became men of substance. It was the custom of the Afgháns during the time of Sultáns Bahlol and Sikandar, and as long as the dominion of the Afgháns lasted, that if any Afghán received a sum of money, or a dress of honour, that sum of money or dress of honour was regularly apportioned to him, and he received it every year."
> 
> "



Short answer for now 

And to his own tribe and family of Súr, who dwelt in the land of Roh, he sent an annual stipend in money, in proportion to the numbers of his family and retainers; and during the period of *his dominion no Afghán, whether in Hind or Roh,* was in want, but all became men of substance. 

The distinction is already there between the tribals and the ones who setteled in 'Hind'. He was one of those who settled in hind and you are not so don't claim what belongs to his descendants


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> Short answer for now
> 
> And to his own tribe and family of Súr, who dwelt in the land of Roh, he sent an annual stipend in money, in proportion to the numbers of his family and retainers; and during the period of *his dominion no Afghán, whether in Hind or Roh,* was in want, but all became men of substance.
> 
> The distinction is already there between the tribals and the ones who setteled in 'Hind'. He was one of those who settled in hind and you are not so don't claim what belongs to his descendants


You are just clutching at straws. Its like saying Pashtuns settled in Karachi have nothing to do with their native villages in KP and Baluchistan


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> You are just clutching at straws. Its like saying Pashtuns settled in Karachi have nothing to do with their native villages in KP and Baluchistan



Yes, eventually they will if they integrate into the local society just like those pathans integrated into the ashrafi society of medieval India, their claim to heritage of their ancestors if they happen to do something great in Karachi will belong to them not to tribals who they sent money to. Your sense of history is screwed and based on false pride. Descendants of lodhis and Sher shah suri don't have to associate themselves with you to claim their heritage

Since you are so fond of quoting passages out of context. here is one for you from the same book whith it's context

When Shádí came to Sher Khán, and delivered at full length Muhammad Khán's message, Sher Khán replied:—“Do you, Shádí Khán, tell the Khán from me, *that this is not the Roh country that I should share equally with my brothers. The country of India is completely at the disposal of the king, nor has any one else any share in it, nor is there any regard to elder or younger, or to kindred. Sikandar Lodí thus decided: ‘If any noble dies, whatever money or other effects he may leave should be divided among his heirs according to the laws of inheritance; but his office and his jágírs and his military retinue let him confer on whichever of the sons he thinks most able; *and in these no one else has a right to share, nor is any remedy open to them.’ Whatever goods and money my father left, Sulaimán with my brothers appropriated before he sought refuge with you. Hitherto, out of regard for my relationship to you, I have said nothing; but whenever he may quit you, I shall reclaim my share of my patrimonial inheritance from him. The _jágír_ and office were conferred on me by Sultán Ibráhím; in them no one has any share. But I said to my brothers, ‘The _jágírs_ which you enjoyed in my father's lifetime I will continue, nay increase to you; but no one can participate in my office.’ It does not become you to say, ‘Give up Tánda and Malhú to Sulaimán.’ I will not willingly yield them. If you take them by force, and give them to him, it is in your power to do so. I have not another word to say.”

They were already looking down on you lot and having an independent identity attached to the land they lived on and their societies operated differently than yours. They did not live in a world dictated by tribes but by rulers and lands they owned. I will dismantel the quotes you posted when i get the time


----------



## xairhossi

Where were the Lodis from originally? Kandahar? @Mian Babban


----------



## BrahmanZada

Lodhis were great empire builders all 2 out of 3 muslim brahmin communities converted to Islam under their rule.


----------



## Mian Babban

xairhossi said:


> Where were the Lodis from originally? Kandahar? @Mian Babban


Afsana-i-Shahan, an Afghan source written during Akbar's reign , says that Bait Baba (progenitor of Baitani tribes including Lodis) lived along the banks of Gomal river which flows through Paktiya, Waziristan, Dera Ismail Khan, Sherani and Zhob. The Lodi clan, which produced the kings, was settled in the Daman area (present-day Tank and western Dera Ismail Khan) and Paniala. Niazi clan of Lodis was settled in Shalghar area of Ghazni. Lohani clan of Lodis was settled in Paktiya and Waziristan, and Sur clan was settled in Kulachi area of Dera Ismail Khan while Bhittanis were once settled in Paktiya. So their original abode is some where in this region (Loya Paktiya of Afghanistan and Daman region of KP).



icebreaker2 said:


> Yes, eventually they will if they integrate into the local society just like those pathans integrated into the ashrafi society of medieval India, their claim to heritage of their ancestors if they happen to do something great in Karachi will belong to them not to tribals who they sent money to. Your sense of history is screwed and based on false pride. Descendants of lodhis and Sher shah suri don't have to associate themselves with you to claim their heritage
> 
> Since you are so fond of quoting passages out of context. here is one for you from the same book whith it's context
> 
> When Shádí came to Sher Khán, and delivered at full length Muhammad Khán's message, Sher Khán replied:—“Do you, Shádí Khán, tell the Khán from me, *that this is not the Roh country that I should share equally with my brothers. The country of India is completely at the disposal of the king, nor has any one else any share in it, nor is there any regard to elder or younger, or to kindred. Sikandar Lodí thus decided: ‘If any noble dies, whatever money or other effects he may leave should be divided among his heirs according to the laws of inheritance; but his office and his jágírs and his military retinue let him confer on whichever of the sons he thinks most able; *and in these no one else has a right to share, nor is any remedy open to them.’ Whatever goods and money my father left, Sulaimán with my brothers appropriated before he sought refuge with you. Hitherto, out of regard for my relationship to you, I have said nothing; but whenever he may quit you, I shall reclaim my share of my patrimonial inheritance from him. The _jágír_ and office were conferred on me by Sultán Ibráhím; in them no one has any share. But I said to my brothers, ‘The _jágírs_ which you enjoyed in my father's lifetime I will continue, nay increase to you; but no one can participate in my office.’ It does not become you to say, ‘Give up Tánda and Malhú to Sulaimán.’ I will not willingly yield them. If you take them by force, and give them to him, it is in your power to do so. I have not another word to say.”
> 
> They were already looking down on you lot and having an independent identity attached to the land they lived on and their societies operated differently than yours. They did not live in a world dictated by tribes but by rulers and lands they owned. I will dismantel the quotes you posted when i get the time


Marra why Sher Shah would look down upon his own people? his entire force was Pashtun and rallying point for that was Pashtun-hood to get rid of Mughals. Sher Shah was spot on, India was not Roh and ground realities were different. Your arguments are that Sher Shah and other India's Afghans did not consider themselves Afghans and looked down upon on those of Roh, refused to sit with them or associate with them (that they were like Sahir Lodhi). That i have already debunked and will debunk more. Here is another passage from Tarikh-i-SherShahi ;

*After the Namáz-i ishrák, he went through various business: he paid each man separately, mustered his old troops, and spoke to the newly-enlisted men himself, and questioned the Afgháns in their native tongue. If any one answered him accurately in the Afghán tongue, he said to him, “Draw a bow,” and if he drew it well, he would give him a salary higher than the rest, and said, “I reckon the Afghán tongue as a friend.”

*


----------



## Avra

@icebreaker2 hey how do you claim to be decendants of those conquerors when you can't even properly pronounce their names and the tribes they belong to. There's no such thing as turik u dimwitt. It's turkic in english n turkçe in turkish. Mirza ghalib n sir syed ahmed weren't turk mongols (the actual word is tatari or tartar for such thing). Have you ever seen turkmongols? They are like turkmen and uzbek. Neither Sir syed nor mirza ghalib had a single one of those tartar features. Everyone knows that every person with the surname of 'khan' isn't actually khan. They don't even know the meaning n the history behind the title. You know you are just a troll, bragging out the history that's found only on 'lackwittypedia' or books written by the angrez sarkar. And pashtuns would be fools to believe the lowlife actors n actresses of showbiz. Their entire life is based on lies and illusions. They'd do anything to deceive people into believing that they hail from a respected family and have decent background. AND AGAIN they don't have any GENETICAL proof to backup their claim. The pashtuns of pashtun diaspora have the genes and 'pashto' (pashto doesn't mean language or ethinicity only) to prove it. What do you have? Empty claims and pathetic indian n iranian (mughlian) written history? I'm damn sure if tests were run all of you posers would lack even the very basic n common scythio-pahlavi gene thats found amongst all the Pashtuns.
Pashtuns did not abandon their beautiful mountains for your so called 'fertile' lands. Why would any Pashtun leave the land of apples,peaches, cherries, grapes pomegranates and dry fruits for daal n chaawal. Why would they convert from 'Afghans' to slaves of Mughal n Angrez mahraaj. They just wanted to conquer n rule n that's it. The people of your region used to ride on donkeys we had horses n you ppl used buy horses from us. Why do you think greeks were adamant to conquer the entire afghan land when they had already brought the persian to their heels? Because they were moved by the beauty of afghans their culture language and lands. (Do study the greek version of history as well)
You don't hate Pakistanis. Yeah u don't particularly. But your statements here has a strong stench of hatred towards pashtuns. And that immense hatred has blinded you to see the truth. Hatred does prompt a person to say stupid things likevfirst saying that their ancestors were afghan and then say they were persians (who happened to have pashto tribal names with pashto meaning) and then they hated the tribes they belonged to. Guess what we don't care what you say or do against us. To the world you are like megalomanian beggars who can't be satisfied with what they have and then start stealing from others to satisfy their cravings.
The different ethinics of the entire world has tribes and tribal system n pride. The persians, the mongols the turks the arabs and even the europeans the nordic ppl the gaels n slavic etc have. Not all of the ppl relied on the caste system made by pathetic humans.
Hey i belong to Syed tribe of pashtuns. We haven't lost arabic. We are always told we are not Pashtuns. Even the pashtun ppl make fun of us n say we are not one of them. My father once met a Tunisian guy during Hajj who (surprisingly) knew about us and even our subtribes amongst pashtuns. He took him to his place and for dinner said to every one 'no ones going to sart eating before this Sheikh (my father) does" . My father n his friends were queit moved by his generosity. And we haven't lost our "Arabness". Most of our ppl do learn arabic and can communicate with arabs pretty well. In my family my father n one of my sisters know Arabic. My sis actually knows more arabic than my father. The Qureshis Hashmis n Syeds you are talking about must be some wannabees and posers like the so called khans n 'lodHis'. I know my ancestors. I didn't read stupid books to know them. Our ancestors passed that knowlege unto us. So you see you don't prove anything by books or media. You have tovreally talk to those ppl observe them their physical and psychological traits and really study them and then form unbiased opinions on them.
Lastly i say again, Bring us the Genetics of the Afghan ancestors and show the World that you truly are what you claim to be then n only then would the world believe you otherwise whatever history you are soooo insisting on would be just some fabricated stories and a world delusions for ppl like you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mian Babban

Coming back to Rohillas, the entire nation/group in 18th century calling themselves Rohillas, were Pashto speakers , adherents of Pashto culture, and in fact great contributors to Pashto literature. The celebrated Najib-ud-Daula was a Pashto poet and wrote a Pashto diwan. Hafiz Rahmat Khan wrote "Khulasat-ul-Ansab" which is genealogy of Pashtun tribes and their histories in native lands. He also arranged the writing of abridged version of 16th century Pashto book on history of Yousafzais (Tarikh-i-Afaghana) which was named "Tarikh-i-Hafiz-Rahmat Khani". His grandson Mahabat Khan wrote a first Pashto grammar book and a Pashto dictionary in 1810. He also wrote a book on history of Pashtuns named "Riazatul-Mahabat". Illahyar Khan Rohilla compiled a Pashto-Persian-Hindustani dictionary called "Ajaib-ul-lughat". Qasim Ali Afridi was a famous Pashto poet of Rohillas in 18th century. Qasim Khan Khattak ,the great grandson of Khushal Khan, was also a Pashto poet and was settled in Rampur. Other renowned Pashto poet of Rohillas in 18th century were Mehbob Ali Khan Rampuri, Kazim Ali Khan Shaida, Abdul Kasim Yousafzai and Afzal Khan. 

The Rohilla identity remained strong as long as they stuck to Pashto, it evaporated when they became Indianized.


----------



## Avra

And @icebreaker2 Good thing you are not living in Pakistan. Cuz Pakistan doesn't need bigot racists whose hatred towards some pakistanis is bordefline mania. I even believe you would do anything against those tribal ppl like bomb them n say 'taliban ny zimadari qabool karli'. It's highly possible considering u being an mqm supporter n trying to prove yourself more loyal to pakistan, while living in a foreign country, than the ppl living here n all that. Are you sure u don't work for some such corrupt organization?
N why would u bother what the xenophobic tribes of pashtuns say n do? Atleast they are not stealing anybody's identity. N if you ask me being a person proud of his/her heritage is waaay better than being a dumb racist bigot.
And if you are going to say more hateful things against the tribes of pashtun and are not going to saying anything sensible plz don't reply.
This thread here was for pashto language and......wait if it's about pashto, why are you here? Seeing you hate pashto n all that. Would it be very rude to ask you to get the hell out of here? If you are so proud of your so called afghan ancestory go write your own book. Like 'Afghan ancestory from 'afghan' (the word afghan actually means pashtun) tribes being persian to altaf bhai being the actual decendant of Suris'. Or "the 'real' lodHis who hated their tribe to the 'real' khans in todays showbiz".


----------



## xairhossi

Mian Babban said:


> Afsana-i-Shahan, an Afghan source written during Akbar's reign , says that Bait Baba (progenitor of Baitani tribes including Lodis) lived along the banks of Gomal river which flows through Paktiya, Waziristan, Dera Ismail Khan, Sherani and Zhob. The Lodi clan, which produced the kings, was settled in the Daman area (present-day Tank and western Dera Ismail Khan) and Paniala. Niazi clan of Lodis was settled in Shalghar area of Ghazni. Lohani clan of Lodis was settled in Paktiya and Waziristan, and Sur clan was settled in Kulachi area of Dera Ismail Khan while Bhittanis were once settled in Paktiya. So their original abode is some where in this region (Loya Paktiya of Afghanistan and Daman region of KP).
> 
> 
> Marra why Sher Shah would look down upon his own people? his entire force was Pashtun and rallying point for that was Pashtun-hood to get rid of Mughals. Sher Shah was spot on, India was not Roh and ground realities were different. Your arguments are that Sher Shah and other India's Afghans did not consider themselves Afghans and looked down upon on those of Roh, refused to sit with them or associate with them (that they were like Sahir Lodhi). That i have already debunked and will debunk more. Here is another passage from Tarikh-i-SherShahi ;
> 
> *After the Namáz-i ishrák, he went through various business: he paid each man separately, mustered his old troops, and spoke to the newly-enlisted men himself, and questioned the Afgháns in their native tongue. If any one answered him accurately in the Afghán tongue, he said to him, “Draw a bow,” and if he drew it well, he would give him a salary higher than the rest, and said, “I reckon the Afghán tongue as a friend.”
> 
> *


Did the Lodis and Suris speak the Sha dialect or the Kha?


----------



## Mian Babban

xairhossi said:


> Did the Lodis and Suris speak the Sha dialect or the Kha?


Sheen dialect i suppose. Almost all the remnants of Lodi tribes in Pakhtunkhwa speak Sheen dialect of Pashto.


----------



## xairhossi

Mian Babban said:


> Sheen dialect i suppose. Almost all the remnants of Lodi tribes in Pakhtunkhwa speak Sheen dialect of Pashto.


I think it's rather interesting that all the major Pashtun dynasties were sheen/southern ones including the Durranis and Hotak.


----------



## Mian Babban

xairhossi said:


> I think it's rather interesting that all the major Pashtun dynasties were sheen/southern ones including the Durranis and Hotak.


In my knowledge the only native Pakhtun from hard dialect belt who declared himself a king and struck coins in his name , was Aimal Khan Mohmand who led the Pashtun uprising of 1672-1677. According to Tarikh-i-Murassa he even sent letters to chiefs of Kanadahar , asking them to rally around him and assist him. Mughals were too powerful for him but if he had succeeded, it would have been first Pashtun dynasty in Pashtun homeland. The concept of kingship was alien to Pashtun tribes in their homeland , and i think Aimal Khan was the first man who seeded the idea, and it seems to have inspired Hotaks and Durranis two decades after him, to struggle for creattion a Pashtun kingdom or emirate for themselves.


----------



## xairhossi

Mian Babban said:


> In my knowledge the only native Pakhtun from hard dialect belt who declared himself a king and struck coins in his name , was Aimal Khan Mohmand who led the Pashtun uprising of 1672-1677. According to Tarikh-i-Murassa he even sent letters to chiefs of Kanadahar , asking them to rally around him and assist him. Mughals were too powerful for him but if he had succeeded, it would have been first Pashtun dynasty in Pashtun homeland. The concept of kingship was alien to Pashtun tribes in their homeland , and i think Aimal Khan was the first man who seeded the idea, and it seems to have inspired Hotaks and Durranis two decades after him, to struggle for creattion a Pashtun kingdom or emirate for themselves.


Why do you think it was exclusively the southern Kandahari type Pashtuns that were more united and had an incentive to form a dynasty compared to the northern ones?


----------



## Mian Babban

xairhossi said:


> Why do you think it was exclusively the southern Kandahari type Pashtuns that were more united and had an incentive to form a dynasty compared to the northern ones?


They had no inter-tribal unity, Abdalis and Ghilzais were killing each other even when they were invaded by foreigners, but there was great degree of intra-tribal cohesiveness in them. Each tribe could mobilize a large army, up to 15 thousands fighting men or more. No other Pashtun tribe had such fighting strength. Yousafzais were perhaps as numerous as Abdalis and Ghilzais but they did not have supreme chieftain like the two who could gather them for a great cause. As i have already mentioned, the movement of Aimal Khan and Khushal Khattak must have seeded the idea of sovereignty in the mind of Mirwais Hotak who was their contemporary. Secondly decline of Safavid empire provided them the chance. After defeating first Safavid army, Hotaks grew bold and ambitious. When they captured Isfahan, it also inspired their rivals the Abdalis (centered in Herat) and they conquered entire Khurasan (including Nishapur and Mashad cities) and were trying to achieve the same status as rival Hotaks. Dreams of both were ruined by Nadir Shah Afshar.


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> Afsana-i-Shahan, an Afghan source written during Akbar's reign , says that Bait Baba (progenitor of Baitani tribes including Lodis) lived along the banks of Gomal river which flows through Paktiya, Waziristan, Dera Ismail Khan, Sherani and Zhob. The Lodi clan, which produced the kings, was settled in the Daman area (present-day Tank and western Dera Ismail Khan) and Paniala. Niazi clan of Lodis was settled in Shalghar area of Ghazni. Lohani clan of Lodis was settled in Paktiya and Waziristan, and Sur clan was settled in Kulachi area of Dera Ismail Khan while Bhittanis were once settled in Paktiya. So their original abode is some where in this region (Loya Paktiya of Afghanistan and Daman region of KP).
> 
> 
> Marra why Sher Shah would look down upon his own people? his entire force was Pashtun and rallying point for that was Pashtun-hood to get rid of Mughals. Sher Shah was spot on, India was not Roh and ground realities were different. Your arguments are that Sher Shah and other India's Afghans did not consider themselves Afghans and looked down upon on those of Roh, refused to sit with them or associate with them (that they were like Sahir Lodhi). That i have already debunked and will debunk more. Here is another passage from Tarikh-i-SherShahi ;
> 
> *After the Namáz-i ishrák, he went through various business: he paid each man separately, mustered his old troops, and spoke to the newly-enlisted men himself, and questioned the Afgháns in their native tongue. If any one answered him accurately in the Afghán tongue, he said to him, “Draw a bow,” and if he drew it well, he would give him a salary higher than the rest, and said, “I reckon the Afghán tongue as a friend.”
> 
> *



You have done a great disservice by selectively quoting Tarikh-i-SherShahi (and have a s**t translation) written by Abbas Khan Sarwani (pathan) who was a a waqia-navis under Mughal emperor Akbar, detailing the rule of Sher Shah Suri. The book does not mention any of the tribe leaders of roh or their tribes but refers to them as a single entity because they were insignificant and not given much importance. They have rarely figured in the book. Pathans came to now UP and Punjab in large numbers with a huge chunk of their tribes and these were the people who played significant role in politics of medieval India. They were proud that they were pathan just as their descendants are now and your (residents of Roh) role in their history is close to non-exsistent. Most of the time when the word Afghan is used it is used in the context of afghans living in hind and bordering regions of sir-hind and whenever afghans from roh are mentioned they specifically say so. Though their names are not mentioned. 

They dissociated themselves from that land and lived in Hind, Bengal and Sirhind and became natives of that land. You people of roh are only distantly connected to their history and then you claim that their descendants have to get your certificate to claim their glorious past and to claim the lineage of their ancestors. Funny how racist small minded bigots like you work. 

I never said he looked down on pathans don't put words in my mouth. Patahns of Hind are proud today as they were back then. When babur came to India loose fractious confederations were formed by Pathans and Rajputs of hind based on their commonalities to gain power. Pathans of roh don't figure much in his history or the history of medieval India. His military generals and fighting armies were mostly composed of Pathans of hind, not of roh who were treated more like hired mercenaries in wars in sind and sirhind and that is how he looked down upon them.

On the nature of these confederations which you call pushton-hood was not really as you describe it. It was a combination of politics and shared identity as pathans (mostly pathans of hind). The pathans only rallied under Sher shah suri once he was powerful enough not before that. You should stop misrepresenting medieval Indian politics. 

When Sher Khán heard this intelligence, he entirely gave up all trust in the promises and faith of Humáyún, and said to the envoy: “I have observed all loyalty to the Emperor, and have committed no offence against him, and have not encroached upon his boundaries. *When I got Bihár from the Lohánís*, and the King of Bengal formed a design to seize that country, I besought him most submissively to leave me as I was, and not to attempt to deprive me of Bihár. By reason of his large army and forces he would not attend to me, and since he thus oppressed me, the Almighty gave me the victory; and as he coveted the kingdom of Bihár, God wrested away from him also the kingdom of Bengal. The Emperor has only considered the word of the ruler of Bengal, and has overlooked the service I have rendered, and all the force of Afgháns which I have assembled for his service, and has marched against Bengal. When the Emperor besieged Chunár, the Afgháns urged me to oppose him, but I restrained them from declaring war, and said, ‘The Emperor is powerful; you should not fight with him for the sake of a fort, for he is my lord and patron, and when he perceives that, in spite of my powerful forces, I pay respect to him, he will understand that I am his loyal servant, and will give me a kingdom to maintain this large army. The Emperor desired the kingdom of Bihár, and I was willing to surrender it. But it is not the right way to govern a kingdom to separate so large a force from his service, and in order to please their enemies, to ruin and slay the Afgháns.’ But since the Emperor takes no heed of all this good service, and has violated his promise, I have now no hope or means of restraining the Afgháns from opposing him. You will hear what deeds the Afgháns will do, and the march to Bengal will end in repentance and regre*t, for now the Afgháns are united, and have laid aside their mutual quarrels and envyings. The country which the Mughals have taken from the Afgháns, they got through the internal dissensions among the latter.*
*
All mentions of Afghans here refer to pathans of hind. Residents of Roh had no part to play in it and neither they were mentioned. This was a political alliance between the pathans of hind not roh. There was not one pathan of roh of any significance. The 'country' mentioned above refers to lands in Hind not roh. That is what he was fighting for along with other patahans of hind
*
The Hindus of Hind had a greater role in the pathan confederation than any pathan from roh.

Sher Khán left Ghází Súr and Buláki,* who was the commandant of Chunár, in that fortress, and removed his family and those of his Afghán followers to the fortress of Bahrkunda; but as he had many families with him, that fort could not hold them all. *There existed a friendly connexion between Sher Khán and the Rájá of the fort of Rohtás, and Chúráman, the Rájá's náíb, was on particular terms of intimate friendship and alliance with Sher Khán.* This Chúráman was a Bráhman, and was a person of the highest rank, and had formerly shown kindness to the family of Míán Nizám, own brother to Sher Khán, and procured them shelter in the fort of Rohtás; and when all danger had gone by, the family again quitted the fort, and made it over to the Rájá. On the present occasion, Sher Khán wrote that he was in great straits, and that if the Rájá would give him the loan of the fort for a short time, he would be obliged to him all his days, and that when all danger was past, he would again restore the fort. Chúráman replied, “Be of good cheer, I will manage it, so that the Rájá shall lend you the fort.” When Chúráman went to the Rájá, he said, “Sher Khán has asked for the loan of Rohtás for his family. He is your neighbour. This is my advice, it is an opportunity to show kindness; you should admit his family.” The Rájá agreed.

The alliance was very fractious and only consolidated after sher shah was powerful enough but never fully and they were as quick to switch allegiance to new power center. The afghan confederation was to maintain their jagirs and not based on anything like modern day pashtun nationalism. 

*The enmity between Sher Khán and the Lohánís increased daily, until the latter at last plotted to kill Sher Khán*, and they thus took counsel among themselves, saying, “Sher Khán waits every day upon Jalál Khán with a very small retinue; let us pretend that Jalál Khán is ill. Sher Khán will go inside the palace to inquire after him. When he is returning, and has passed through one gate, and before he reaches the other, let us kill him, while thus inclosed between the two gates of Jalál Khán's palace.”

*After the Namáz-i ishrák, he went through various business: he paid each man separately, mustered his old troops, and spoke to the newly-enlisted men himself, and questioned the Afgháns in their native tongue.* If any one answered him accurately in the Afghán tongue, he said to him, “Draw a bow,” and if he drew it well, he would give him a salary higher than the rest, and said, *“I reckon the Afghán tongue as a friend.”* And in the same place he inspected the treasure which arrived from all parts of the kingdom, and gave audience to his nobles or their _vakíls_, or to _zamíndárs_, or to the envoys of the kings of other countries, who came to his victorious camp; or he heard the reports which came from the nobles who were his '_ámils_, and gave answers to them according to his own judgment, and the _munshís_ wrote them. When two hours and a half of the day were over, he rose up and eat his breakfast with his '_ulama_ and holy men, and after breakfast he returned and was engaged as before described till mid-day. At mid-day he performed the _kailúla_ (which is a supererogatory act of devotion), and took a short repose. After his rest he performed the afternoon devotions in company with a large assembly of men, and afterwards employed himself in reading the Holy Word. After that he spent his time in the business described above; and whether at home or abroad, there was no violation of these rules.

*The rules for the collection of revenue from the people, and for the prosperity of the kingdom, were after this wise: There was appointed in every pargana,* one amír, one God-fearing shikkdár, one treasurer, one kárkun to write Hindí, and one to write Persian; and he ordered his governors to measure the land every harvest, to collect the revenue according to the measurement, and in proportion to the produce, giving one share to the cultivator, and half a share to the mukaddam; *

Where do you think these Afghanis dropped from. They were mostly from hind. Off course he had affinity to pathans as he was a pathan himself but not from roh but from hind. He did not say my first language is Afghan tongue but reckoned it as a friend. His language of use was persian. Another sign of differentiation between the two which only increased over time.

Over time the pathans of hind were totally disassociated from the tribals of Roh and were part of the Ashrafi culture of hind. Even Rohillas who cam in the 18th century very quickly became a part of it. You have no claim over the histories of these people. Claim your own history of tribal warfare and poverty.
* 
Nawab Muhammad Yusef Ali Khan Bahadur*, KSI, (5 March 1816 – 21 April 1865) was a Nawab of the princely state of Rampur from 1855 to 1865. During the First War of Independence, he rendered many useful services to the Government of India by keeping the British supply and communication lines to Naini Tal open, rescuing fugitives and securing the town of Moradabad. For his service, he was granted extensive lands in Bareilly by the Viceroy of India, Lord Canning, was knighted in 1861 and given a 13-gun salute along with the style of _His Highness_. Finally, he was made a member of the Viceroy's Council. Despite this multitude of honours, Sir Yusef continued to preserve the Mughal artistic tradition by inviting musicians, scholars and artists of Bahadur Shah Zafar II's court to resettle at Rampur, including the great poet Ghalib. Dying at 49 in 1865, he was succeeded by his son, Sir Kalb Ali Khan Bahadur.[1]

And here are their present day descendents


----------



## icebreaker2

icebreaker2 said:


> You have done a great disservice by selectively quoting Tarikh-i-SherShahi (and have a s**t translation) written by Abbas Khan Sarwani (pathan) who was a a waqia-navis under Mughal emperor Akbar, detailing the rule of Sher Shah Suri. The book does not mention any of the tribe leaders of roh or their tribes but refers to them as a single entity because they were insignificant and not given much importance. They have rarely figured in the book. Pathans came to now UP and Punjab in large numbers with a huge chunk of their tribes and these were the people who played significant role in politics of medieval India. They were proud that they were pathan just as their descendants are now and your (residents of Roh) role in their history is close to non-exsistent. Most of the time when the word Afghan is used it is used in the context of afghans living in hind and bordering regions of sir-hind and whenever afghans from roh are mentioned they specifically say so. Though their names are not mentioned.
> 
> They dissociated themselves from that land and lived in Hind, Bengal and Sirhind and became natives of that land. You people of roh are only distantly connected to their history and then you claim that their descendants have to get your certificate to claim their glorious past and to claim the lineage of their ancestors. Funny how racist small minded bigots like you work.
> 
> I never said he looked down on pathans don't put words in my mouth. Patahns of Hind are proud today as they were back then. When babur came to India loose fractious confederations were formed by Pathans and Rajputs of hind based on their commonalities to gain power. Pathans of roh don't figure much in his history or the history of medieval India. His military generals and fighting armies were mostly composed of Pathans of hind, not of roh who were treated more like hired mercenaries in wars in sind and sirhind and that is how he looked down upon them.
> 
> On the nature of these confederations which you call pushton-hood was not really as you describe it. It was a combination of politics and shared identity as pathans (mostly pathans of hind). The pathans only rallied under Sher shah suri once he was powerful enough not before that. You should stop misrepresenting medieval Indian politics.
> 
> When Sher Khán heard this intelligence, he entirely gave up all trust in the promises and faith of Humáyún, and said to the envoy: “I have observed all loyalty to the Emperor, and have committed no offence against him, and have not encroached upon his boundaries. *When I got Bihár from the Lohánís*, and the King of Bengal formed a design to seize that country, I besought him most submissively to leave me as I was, and not to attempt to deprive me of Bihár. By reason of his large army and forces he would not attend to me, and since he thus oppressed me, the Almighty gave me the victory; and as he coveted the kingdom of Bihár, God wrested away from him also the kingdom of Bengal. The Emperor has only considered the word of the ruler of Bengal, and has overlooked the service I have rendered, and all the force of Afgháns which I have assembled for his service, and has marched against Bengal. When the Emperor besieged Chunár, the Afgháns urged me to oppose him, but I restrained them from declaring war, and said, ‘The Emperor is powerful; you should not fight with him for the sake of a fort, for he is my lord and patron, and when he perceives that, in spite of my powerful forces, I pay respect to him, he will understand that I am his loyal servant, and will give me a kingdom to maintain this large army. The Emperor desired the kingdom of Bihár, and I was willing to surrender it. But it is not the right way to govern a kingdom to separate so large a force from his service, and in order to please their enemies, to ruin and slay the Afgháns.’ But since the Emperor takes no heed of all this good service, and has violated his promise, I have now no hope or means of restraining the Afgháns from opposing him. You will hear what deeds the Afgháns will do, and the march to Bengal will end in repentance and regre*t, for now the Afgháns are united, and have laid aside their mutual quarrels and envyings. The country which the Mughals have taken from the Afgháns, they got through the internal dissensions among the latter.
> 
> All mentions of Afghans here refer to pathans of hind. Residents of Roh had no part to play in it and neither they were mentioned. This was a political alliance between the pathans of hind not roh. There was not one pathan of roh of any significance. The 'country' mentioned above refers to lands in Hind not roh. That is what he was fighting for along with other patahans of hind
> *
> The Hindus of Hind had a greater role in the pathan confederation than any pathan from roh.
> 
> Sher Khán left Ghází Súr and Buláki,* who was the commandant of Chunár, in that fortress, and removed his family and those of his Afghán followers to the fortress of Bahrkunda; but as he had many families with him, that fort could not hold them all. *There existed a friendly connexion between Sher Khán and the Rájá of the fort of Rohtás, and Chúráman, the Rájá's náíb, was on particular terms of intimate friendship and alliance with Sher Khán.* This Chúráman was a Bráhman, and was a person of the highest rank, and had formerly shown kindness to the family of Míán Nizám, own brother to Sher Khán, and procured them shelter in the fort of Rohtás; and when all danger had gone by, the family again quitted the fort, and made it over to the Rájá. On the present occasion, Sher Khán wrote that he was in great straits, and that if the Rájá would give him the loan of the fort for a short time, he would be obliged to him all his days, and that when all danger was past, he would again restore the fort. Chúráman replied, “Be of good cheer, I will manage it, so that the Rájá shall lend you the fort.” When Chúráman went to the Rájá, he said, “Sher Khán has asked for the loan of Rohtás for his family. He is your neighbour. This is my advice, it is an opportunity to show kindness; you should admit his family.” The Rájá agreed.
> 
> The alliance was very fractious and only consolidated after sher shah was powerful enough but never fully and they were as quick to switch allegiance to new power center. The afghan confederation was to maintain their jagirs and not based on anything like modern day pashtun nationalism.
> 
> *The enmity between Sher Khán and the Lohánís increased daily, until the latter at last plotted to kill Sher Khán*, and they thus took counsel among themselves, saying, “Sher Khán waits every day upon Jalál Khán with a very small retinue; let us pretend that Jalál Khán is ill. Sher Khán will go inside the palace to inquire after him. When he is returning, and has passed through one gate, and before he reaches the other, let us kill him, while thus inclosed between the two gates of Jalál Khán's palace.”
> 
> *After the Namáz-i ishrák, he went through various business: he paid each man separately, mustered his old troops, and spoke to the newly-enlisted men himself, and questioned the Afgháns in their native tongue.* If any one answered him accurately in the Afghán tongue, he said to him, “Draw a bow,” and if he drew it well, he would give him a salary higher than the rest, and said, *“I reckon the Afghán tongue as a friend.”* And in the same place he inspected the treasure which arrived from all parts of the kingdom, and gave audience to his nobles or their _vakíls_, or to _zamíndárs_, or to the envoys of the kings of other countries, who came to his victorious camp; or he heard the reports which came from the nobles who were his '_ámils_, and gave answers to them according to his own judgment, and the _munshís_ wrote them. When two hours and a half of the day were over, he rose up and eat his breakfast with his '_ulama_ and holy men, and after breakfast he returned and was engaged as before described till mid-day. At mid-day he performed the _kailúla_ (which is a supererogatory act of devotion), and took a short repose. After his rest he performed the afternoon devotions in company with a large assembly of men, and afterwards employed himself in reading the Holy Word. After that he spent his time in the business described above; and whether at home or abroad, there was no violation of these rules.
> 
> *The rules for the collection of revenue from the people, and for the prosperity of the kingdom, were after this wise: There was appointed in every pargana,* one amír, one God-fearing shikkdár, one treasurer, one kárkun to write Hindí, and one to write Persian; and he ordered his governors to measure the land every harvest, to collect the revenue according to the measurement, and in proportion to the produce, giving one share to the cultivator, and half a share to the mukaddam; *
> 
> Where do you think these Afghanis dropped from. They were mostly from hind. Off course he had affinity to pathans as he was a pathan himself but not from roh but from hind. He did not say my first language is Afghan tongue but reckoned it as a friend. His language of use was persian. Another sign of differentiation between the two which only increased over time.
> 
> Over time the pathans of hind were totally disassociated from the tribals of Roh and were part of the Ashrafi culture of hind. Even Rohillas who cam in the 18th century very quickly became a part of it. You have no claim over the histories of these people. Claim your own history of tribal warfare and poverty.
> *
> Nawab Muhammad Yusef Ali Khan Bahadur*, KSI, (5 March 1816 – 21 April 1865) was a Nawab of the princely state of Rampur from 1855 to 1865. During the First War of Independence, he rendered many useful services to the Government of India by keeping the British supply and communication lines to Naini Tal open, rescuing fugitives and securing the town of Moradabad. For his service, he was granted extensive lands in Bareilly by the Viceroy of India, Lord Canning, was knighted in 1861 and given a 13-gun salute along with the style of _His Highness_. Finally, he was made a member of the Viceroy's Council. Despite this multitude of honours, Sir Yusef continued to preserve the Mughal artistic tradition by inviting musicians, scholars and artists of Bahadur Shah Zafar II's court to resettle at Rampur, including the great poet Ghalib. Dying at 49 in 1865, he was succeeded by his son, Sir Kalb Ali Khan Bahadur.[1]
> 
> And here are their present day descendents



You little tribals don't have a copyright on being pathan or any tribe. So get it out of you pathetic heads that you an tell people who is a pathan and who isn't. Not all Pathans are backward tribal people like you and they speak different languages (Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi) and have a far greater history and culture than yours


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> You have done a great disservice by selectively quoting Tarikh-i-SherShahi (and have a s**t translation) written by Abbas Khan Sarwani (pathan) who was a a waqia-navis under Mughal emperor Akbar, detailing the rule of Sher Shah Suri. The book does not mention any of the tribe leaders of roh or their tribes but refers to them as a single entity because they were insignificant and not given much importance. They have rarely figured in the book. Pathans came to now UP and Punjab in large numbers with a huge chunk of their tribes and these were the people who played significant role in politics of medieval India. They were proud that they were pathan just as their descendants are now and your (residents of Roh) role in their history is close to non-exsistent. Most of the time when the word Afghan is used it is used in the context of afghans living in hind and bordering regions of sir-hind and whenever afghans from roh are mentioned they specifically say so. Though their names are not mentioned.
> 
> They dissociated themselves from that land and lived in Hind, Bengal and Sirhind and became natives of that land. You people of roh are only distantly connected to their history and then you claim that their descendants have to get your certificate to claim their glorious past and to claim the lineage of their ancestors. Funny how racist small minded bigots like you work.


You can satisfy your ego by calling me a racist but i am merely stating established facts. You are right, Afghans/Pashtuns in India did lose their ethnic identity but not within few generations but after becoming fully Indianized. After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others. They could not tell their tribe or other details. For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun. The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.



> I never said he looked down on pathans don't put words in my mouth. Patahns of Hind are proud today as they were back then. When babur came to India loose fractious confederations were formed by Pathans and Rajputs of hind based on their commonalities to gain power. Pathans of roh don't figure much in his history or the history of medieval India. His military generals and fighting armies were mostly composed of Pathans of hind, not of roh who were treated more like hired mercenaries in wars in sind and sirhind and that is how he looked down upon them.


The Pashtuns of those days, in their graves, wont be proud of you and others linked with Altaf Hussain. Their Pashtun heart will be bleeding for Pashtuns of Afghanistan, Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and Karachi. And its not true, Babur army consisted of his own Mirzas and Pashtuns of Roh. He had allies in Ghoria Khels and Dilazaks but his Afghan wife's brother Mir Jamal also accompanied him with 1200 Yousafzais. There were also few thousands Kheshgi Pashtuns in his army who were given Kasur as reward for their settlement. And if you think that Babur had high opinions about Pashtuns settled in India, then you are wrong. In his Baburnama he calls them most Idiotic people out of all in India.



> On the nature of these confederations which you call pushton-hood was not really as you describe it. It was a combination of politics and shared identity as pathans (mostly pathans of hind). The pathans only rallied under Sher shah suri once he was powerful enough not before that. You should stop misrepresenting medieval Indian politics.


Perhaps you have not read Baburnama. Babur was very eager to earn the friendship of Pashtuns nobles in India and showered favours on them, gave them khilats and confirmed them in their jagirs instead of giving it to his Mirzas. Yet Afghan nobles were rebelling again and again and were not caring about losing jagirs granted by Babur. Why?. Its because of their sense of being Pashtun. If they were not Pashtuns they would not have been so restless and troublesome and would have preferred Mughal service without any hesitation.


*



All mentions of Afghans here refer to pathans of hind. Residents of Roh had no part to play in it and neither they were mentioned. This was a political alliance between the pathans of hind not roh. There was not one pathan of roh of any significance. The 'country' mentioned above refers to lands in Hind not roh. That is what he was fighting for along with other patahans of hind

Click to expand...

*Its because affairs in India did not concern those in Roh unless they were specifically invited to interfere. The Afghan Sultans of India also refrained from interfering in affairs of Roh. Hind was like Karachi, Pashtuns from Roh were migrating there for job opportunities.





> The alliance was very fractious and only consolidated after sher shah was powerful enough but never fully and they were as quick to switch allegiance to new power center. The afghan confederation was to maintain their jagirs and not based on anything like modern day pashtun nationalism.


You should read further, Sher Shah betrayed that Raja.






> Where do you think these Afghanis dropped from. They were mostly from hind. Off course he had affinity to pathans as he was a pathan himself but not from roh but from hind. He did not say my first language is Afghan tongue but reckoned it as a friend. His language of use was persian. Another sign of differentiation between the two which only increased over time.


You are not paying attention to what you are copy pasting. If he was questioning his soldiers in Afghan tongue i.e Pashto then he was obviously a Pashto speaker. Read more, Abbas Sarwani says that Sher Shah greeted his grandfather in Afghan tongue.



> Over time the pathans of hind were totally disassociated from the tribals of Roh and were part of the Ashrafi culture of hind. Even Rohillas who cam in the 18th century very quickly became a part of it. You have no claim over the histories of these people. Claim your own history of tribal warfare and poverty.


All the human beings in the world will disagree with you. Hafiz Rahmat Khan, one of the greatest figure of Rohillas, was a Pashto speaker and doer, convince me how he has any thing to do with you because you have loudly announced that you have nothing to do with any Pashto speaker.



icebreaker2 said:


> You little tribals don't have a copyright on being pathan or any tribe. So get it out of you pathetic heads that you an tell people who is a pathan and who isn't. Not all Pathans are backward tribal people like you and they speak different languages (Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi) and have a far greater history and culture than yours


We are indeed not Pathans or Pathanis.....we are Pashtun or Afghans......What we say will always define Pashtun identity and what we do will shape Pashtun history. And its your Indian mentality which is looking down upon tribal people. All proper Pashtuns are tribal. "You backward tribal people", thats the language and tone of Indians, not Pashtuns. "A tribe" in Pashtun belt or immediate vicinity which speaks Farsi, Balochi or Punjabi but all of its interests, including political ones, are common with us, then they are Pashtuns. But any Alaf-Hussaini Urdu-speaker is not Pashtun.


----------



## icebreaker2

It should be clear to you from these passages of Tareekh-e-Khan Jahani wa Makhzan-e-Afghani that that bhalal lodi since his ancestors settling in sirhind was no longer a part of any tribal structure of lodi's not in sirhind and did not fight in any tribal warfare for them. The one's in Sirhind were no longer following tribal customs and their social structure was that of indus-gangetic plains. i.e Zamindari and kingship. 

Read carefully how people distinguished between them and pathans from roh. He was able to fool the sultane by presenting them as savages because he was unaware of them. They led a different lifestyle and were not part of any power structure in India. Only Pathans who came to the plains in service of different sultans ever ruled over India because they part of the power structure of the sultans not because they were part of some tribe.


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> It should be clear to you from these passages of Tareekh-e-Khan Jahani wa Makhzan-e-Afghani that that bhalal lodi since his ancestors settling in sirhind was no longer a part of any tribal structure of lodi's not in sirhind and *did not fight in any tribal warfare for them.* .


His father was killed in a tribal war with Niazis


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

icebreaker2 said:


> View attachment 401803
> 
> 
> View attachment 401804
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 401805
> 
> 
> It should be clear to you from these passages of Tareekh-e-Khan Jahani wa Makhzan-e-Afghani that that bhalal lodi since his ancestors settling in sirhind was no longer a part of any tribal structure of lodi's not in sirhind and did not fight in any tribal warfare for them. The one's in Sirhind were no longer following tribal customs and their social structure was that of indus-gangetic plains. i.e Zamindari and kingship.
> 
> Read carefully how people distinguished between them and pathans from roh. He was able to fool the sultane by presenting them as savages because he was unaware of them. They led a different lifestyle and were not part of any power structure in India. Only Pathans who came to the plains in service of different sultans ever ruled over India because they part of the power structure of the sultans not because they were part of some tribe.



Where is Sirhind?


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> His father was killed in a tribal war with Niazis
> 
> View attachment 401806



Posting snippets from passages out of context won't support your a argument. If you read the book it is very clear how much they were part of any tribal warfare or associated with it. If you have the guts why don't you post the whole passage buddy. Don't try to deny history and claim the glories of other people


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Avra said:


> @icebreaker2 hey how do you claim to be decendants of those conquerors when you can't even properly pronounce their names and the tribes they belong to. There's no such thing as turik u dimwitt. It's turkic in english n turkçe in turkish. Mirza ghalib n sir syed ahmed weren't turk mongols (the actual word is tatari or tartar for such thing). Have you ever seen turkmongols? They are like turkmen and uzbek. Neither Sir syed nor mirza ghalib had a single one of those tartar features. Everyone knows that every person with the surname of 'khan' isn't actually khan. They don't even know the meaning n the history behind the title. You know you are just a troll, bragging out the history that's found only on 'lackwittypedia' or books written by the angrez sarkar. And pashtuns would be fools to believe the lowlife actors n actresses of showbiz. Their entire life is based on lies and illusions. They'd do anything to deceive people into believing that they hail from a respected family and have decent background. AND AGAIN they don't have any GENETICAL proof to backup their claim. The pashtuns of pashtun diaspora have the genes and 'pashto' (pashto doesn't mean language or ethinicity only) to prove it. What do you have? Empty claims and pathetic indian n iranian (mughlian) written history? I'm damn sure if tests were run all of you posers would lack even the very basic n common scythio-pahlavi gene thats found amongst all the Pashtuns.
> Pashtuns did not abandon their beautiful mountains for your so called 'fertile' lands. Why would any Pashtun leave the land of apples,peaches, cherries, grapes pomegranates and dry fruits for daal n chaawal. Why would they convert from 'Afghans' to slaves of Mughal n Angrez mahraaj. They just wanted to conquer n rule n that's it. The people of your region used to ride on donkeys we had horses n you ppl used buy horses from us. Why do you think greeks were adamant to conquer the entire afghan land when they had already brought the persian to their heels? Because they were moved by the beauty of afghans their culture language and lands. (Do study the greek version of history as well)
> You don't hate Pakistanis. Yeah u don't particularly. But your statements here has a strong stench of hatred towards pashtuns. And that immense hatred has blinded you to see the truth. Hatred does prompt a person to say stupid things likevfirst saying that their ancestors were afghan and then say they were persians (who happened to have pashto tribal names with pashto meaning) and then they hated the tribes they belonged to. Guess what we don't care what you say or do against us. To the world you are like megalomanian beggars who can't be satisfied with what they have and then start stealing from others to satisfy their cravings.
> The different ethinics of the entire world has tribes and tribal system n pride. The persians, the mongols the turks the arabs and even the europeans the nordic ppl the gaels n slavic etc have. Not all of the ppl relied on the caste system made by pathetic humans.
> Hey i belong to Syed tribe of pashtuns. We haven't lost arabic. We are always told we are not Pashtuns. Even the pashtun ppl make fun of us n say we are not one of them. My father once met a Tunisian guy during Hajj who (surprisingly) knew about us and even our subtribes amongst pashtuns. He took him to his place and for dinner said to every one 'no ones going to sart eating before this Sheikh (my father) does" . My father n his friends were queit moved by his generosity. And we haven't lost our "Arabness". Most of our ppl do learn arabic and can communicate with arabs pretty well. In my family my father n one of my sisters know Arabic. My sis actually knows more arabic than my father. The Qureshis Hashmis n Syeds you are talking about must be some wannabees and posers like the so called khans n 'lodHis'. I know my ancestors. I didn't read stupid books to know them. Our ancestors passed that knowlege unto us. So you see you don't prove anything by books or media. You have tovreally talk to those ppl observe them their physical and psychological traits and really study them and then form unbiased opinions on them.
> Lastly i say again, Bring us the Genetics of the Afghan ancestors and show the World that you truly are what you claim to be then n only then would the world believe you otherwise whatever history you are soooo insisting on would be just some fabricated stories and a world delusions for ppl like you.



Sher Shah was persian and hindustani speaker, not pashto. He was 4th generation bihari and looked like one instead of fake portraits modern day nationalists post of him. You are Syed among tribal pashtuns which mean you are fake 100% even if you speak arabic now. Anyone can learn to speak arabic. In Hyderabad arab soldiers migrated and were being employed by muslim rulers who didn't trust local recruits loyalty but they no longer speak arabic. No arab migrated to tribal pashutn lands let alone direct decedent of Muhammad (PBUH).


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> You can satisfy your ego by calling me a racist but i am merely stating established facts. You are right, Afghans/Pashtuns in India did lose their ethnic identity but not within few generations but after becoming fully Indianized. After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others. They could not tell their tribe or other details. For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun. The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.
> 
> 
> The Pashtuns of those days, in their graves, wont be proud of you and others linked with Altaf Hussain. Their Pashtun heart will be bleeding for Pashtuns of Afghanistan, Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and Karachi. And its not true, Babur army consisted of his own Mirzas and Pashtuns of Roh. He had allies in Ghoria Khels and Dilazaks but his Afghan wife's brother Mir Jamal also accompanied him with 1200 Yousafzais. There were also few thousands Kheshgi Pashtuns in his army who were given Kasur as reward for their settlement. And if you think that Babur had high opinions about Pashtuns settled in India, then you are wrong. In his Baburnama he calls them most Idiotic people out of all in India.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have not read Baburnama. Babur was very eager to earn the friendship of Pashtuns nobles in India and showered favours on them, gave them khilats and confirmed them in their jagirs instead of giving it to his Mirzas. Yet Afghan nobles were rebelling again and again and were not caring about losing jagirs granted by Babur. Why?. Its because of their sense of being Pashtun. If they were not Pashtuns they would not have been so restless and troublesome and would have preferred Mughal service without any hesitation.
> 
> 
> 
> Its because affairs in India did not concern those in Roh unless they were specifically invited to interfere. The Afghan Sultans of India also refrained from interfering in affairs of Roh. Hind was like Karachi, Pashtuns from Roh were migrating there for job opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should read further, Sher Shah betrayed that Raja.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not paying attention to what you are copy pasting. If he was questioning his soldiers in Afghan tongue i.e Pashto then he was obviously a Pashto speaker. Read more, Abbas Sarwani says that Sher Shah greeted his grandfather in Afghan tongue.
> 
> 
> All the human beings in the world will disagree with you. Hafiz Rahmat Khan, one of the greatest figure of Rohillas, was a Pashto speaker and doer, convince me how he has any thing to do with you because you have loudly announced that you have nothing to do with any Pashto speaker.
> 
> 
> We are indeed not Pathans or Pathanis.....we are Pashtun or Afghans......What we say will always define Pashtun identity and what we do will shape Pashtun history. And its your Indian mentality which is looking down upon tribal people. All proper Pashtuns are tribal. "You backward tribal people", thats the language and tone of Indians, not Pashtuns. "A tribe" in Pashtun belt or immediate vicinity which speaks Farsi, Balochi or Punjabi but all of its interests, including political ones, are common with us, then they are Pashtuns. But any Alaf-Hussaini Urdu-speaker is not Pashtun.



'You can satisfy your ego by calling me a racist but i am merely stating established facts. You are right, Afghans/Pashtuns in India did lose their ethnic identity but not within few generations but after becoming fully Indianized. After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others. They could not tell their tribe or other details. For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun. The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.

*Again you are spewing bullshit. 'After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others' No it did not take them a century or two to distinguish themselves from your lot. It was always done within one or two generations. Even the first generation basically left their greater tribal structure to live on new lands and live new lives in different social and cultural structures. 

What do you mean by 'plain Indians' you savage culture less tribal. They were part of the ashrafi class. The modern day muslim culture of subcontinent (also true for whole subcontinent to a lesser extent)was defined by them and they went on to build great monuments. From urdu to biryani to classical music. You live in a world created by them moron.*

'For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period (wtf is suri period) but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun'.
*
Wrong again and making up bs. People know their history just like you know which tribe you come from. If some one says they are of pashtoon descent they probably are and yes they don't know their tribes because it has no relevance to them but that does not mean you somehow are the claimant of their heritage tribal pushton.*

'The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.'

*The pashtuns in siraki belt have nothing to do with you tribals they speak a different language and have a different culture. They identify themselves as seraiki not tribal pashtun but you can bet they are of pashtun heritage and proud of it. They don't need a certificate from a triba*l

*Again bs and misinterpretation of history. Read a historical book on the topic. Even Shah walliullah invited Ahmed shah abdali because he felt Muslims were loosing power. Even Rohilla pathan/pushton supported Abdali so did many other people of different ethnicities because it was in their interest. The people in Multan region were practically his subjects, no surprise they supported him. What do you think they were going to fight him? Stop reading history with with your head filled with stupid pashton nationalism you are going to butcher it just like the hindutvas do.*

'The Pashtuns of those days, in their graves, wont be proud of you and others linked with Altaf Hussain. Their Pashtun heart will be bleeding for Pashtuns of Afghanistan, Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and Karachi. And its not true, Babur army consisted of his own Mirzas and Pashtuns of Roh. He had allies in Ghoria Khels and Dilazaks but his Afghan wife's brother Mir Jamal also accompanied him with 1200 Yousafzais. There were also few thousands Kheshgi Pashtuns in his army who were given Kasur as reward for their settlement. And if you think that Babur had high opinions about Pashtuns settled in India, then you are wrong. In his Baburnama he calls them most Idiotic people out of all in India.'

*Yeah off course he did. They were his rivals along with the rajputs. (I don't have very high opinion of them myself. Turik were the ultimate rulers) I am not linked with Altaf hussain Afghani r*t. I have told you this before. Babur army did not consist of mirzas or pashtuns of roh. It was consisted of his allies and hostages. Are you going to give the credit of baburs victory to his pashtuns of roh. Lol. Which ever pashton came to India endend up a pashton of hind and were part of the ashrafi class. Also, These pashtuns of roh were fighting with Ibrahim Lodhi. what does that say about your narrative. That contradicts you narrative doesn't it? In fact Ibrahim lodi's own cousin(governor of punjab)was against him. 'Pashtun heart will be bleeding...' haha yeah sure make more fairy tales if it makes you happy. What a ridiculous thing to say*

'You are not paying attention to what you are copy pasting. If he was questioning his soldiers in Afghan tongue i.e Pashto then he was obviously a Pashto speaker. Read more, Abbas Sarwani says that Sher Shah greeted his grandfather in Afghan tongue.'

*No shit. Abbas Sarwani was a pashton would you not greet a french guy in french. There is no doubt that Sher Shah Suri used Persian as his primary language so don't post stupid examples. They became part of the ruling nobility and Persian was their language. No one is saying he did not speak pashto but I can also guarantee you his descendants don't*

'All the human beings in the world will disagree with you. Hafiz Rahmat Khan, one of the greatest figure of Rohillas, was a Pashto speaker and doer, convince me how he has any thing to do with you because you have loudly announced that you have nothing to do with any Pashto speaker.'

*No one will disagree with me. Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech (1723 - April 1774) was part and parcel of Mughal nobility. He was colored in their color. Had their habits and was one of them and not part of Barech tribe living hundreds of kilometer away from. He was second generation and I'm sure he spoke pashto but he did not identify with the tribals of Roh. His loyalty was not with them nor did he showed any allegiance to them nor was he bound by their tribal structure. That is one of the reasons Pashtons from different tribes worked well together because they did not identify with their tribal identity but with Rohilla identity*

'We are indeed not Pathans or Pathanis.....we are Pashtun or Afghans......What we say will always define Pashtun identity and what we do will shape Pashtun history. And its your Indian mentality which is looking down upon tribal people. All proper Pashtuns are tribal. "You backward tribal people", thats the language and tone of Indians, not Pashtuns. "A tribe" in Pashtun belt or immediate vicinity which speaks Farsi, Balochi or Punjabi but all of its interests, including political ones, are common with us, then they are Pashtuns. But any Alaf-Hussaini Urdu-speaker is not Pashtun'

*Indeed you are not a Pashtun of hind or sirhind or punjab. You are of tribal badlands and that is the crux of my argument so do don't try to claim our history. You will not define identity of Pashtuns but you are free to define identity of tribal pashtuns because you are one of them 

'Indian mentality'. Who are you calling Indian, Afghani cockroach. You think my heritage makes me Indian. Have you lost your mind? You are bearly Pakistani. Your people were side players in it's creation and have little influence on it's culture. Pakistan is the product of the culture of my ancestors. Bow down to your overlords and accept facts or go live with your opium addicted brothers across the border

Keep yourself limited to yourself and don't try to define the identity of other people whether they associate with Altaf Husssain or queen Victoria
*
'Perhaps you have not read Baburnama. Babur was very eager to earn the friendship of Pashtuns nobles in India and showered favours on them, gave them khilats and confirmed them in their jagirs instead of giving it to his Mirzas. Yet Afghan nobles were rebelling again and again and were not caring about losing jagirs granted by Babur. Why?. Its because of their sense of being Pashtun. If they were not Pashtuns they would not have been so restless and troublesome and would have preferred Mughal service without any hesitation.'

*Again stupid irrelevant bs. It is not even worth answering. Neither does it show they were associated in any way with the tribals of roh. Off course they rebelling. They wanted their power and status back and they were not the only ones rebelling so were other people who lost power. And are you telling me no Afghans of hind were loyal to Akbar? Funny how you are connecting typical medieval politics with pashtunism of KPK and these pathans with tribals of Roh. Bring something more solid.*

'Its because affairs in India did not concern those in Roh unless they were *specifically invited* to interfere. The Afghan Sultans of India also refrained from interfering in affairs of Roh. Hind was like Karachi, Pashtuns from Roh were migrating there for job opportunities.'

*No one 'specifically invited' them buddy. They were not worth an invite. You are talking as if the advanced state of Roh brought huge armies to help pashtons of hind and changed the history. Lol

No one cared about roh because there was nothing in roh. The price was the indus-gangetic plains. Like no one throughout history has cared about arabain peninsula. They just captured the coast and left the arab tribals in the deserts. *

'You should read further, Sher Shah betrayed that Raja'

*And he fought Lohani ruler of bihar and was nearly assassinated by them. what's your point buddy
*


----------



## icebreaker2

I just find it hilarious this lunny toon from some godforsaken dirt patch is trying to claim the legacy of the rulers of delhi, Rohillas, nawabs of Oudh, nawabs of Bhopal etc. while at the same time cursing at their descendants. Tell Sheryar Khan that you and not him is the kith and kin of the nawabs of Bhopal and tell me which patch of land was ruled by your great grandfather and what monuments did he build?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahryar_Khan

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

icebreaker2 said:


> I just find it hilarious this lunny toon from some godforsaken dirt patch is trying to claim the legacy of the rulers of delhi, Rohillas, nawabs of Oudh, nawabs of Bhopal etc. while at the same time cursing at their descendants. Tell Sheryar Khan that you and not him is the kith and kin of the nawabs of Bhopal and tell me which patch of land was ruled by your great grandfather and what monuments did he build?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahryar_Khan



Foolish to look at history with modern lens. Hate urdu speaking pathans but claim all of their ancestor achievements as their own while living in some tribal village which mean his direct ancestors didn't play any important role in history of subcontinent. ironic 

I fail to see how direct descendants can't claim their heritage while someone else far away can?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> *
> What do you mean by 'plain Indians' you savage culture less tribal. They were part of the ashrafi class. The modern day muslim culture of subcontinent (also true for whole subcontinent to a lesser extent)was defined by them and they went on to build great monuments. From urdu to biryani to classical music. You live in a world created by them moron.*


On one hand you are claiming to be from "Ashrafi caste" of Indians from Rampur and on the other hand it triggers you when i call you Indian. You are a confused individual.




> *The pashtuns in siraki belt have nothing to do with you tribals they speak a different language and have a different culture. They identify themselves as seraiki not tribal pashtun but you can bet they are of pashtun heritage and proud of it. They don't need a certificate from a triba*l


I was not talking about Seraiki belt. Kasur and Malerkotla of Punjab in 18th century (not today's) was on my mind. While they had retained their Afghan identity in 18th century, same is not the case today as they have become completely Punjabized/Indianized. Today very few people in Kasur district identity themselves as 'Pathan' or 'Afghan' even though they could bring forth 20,000 men to the field in early 18th century.

*



Babur army did not consist of mirzas or pashtuns of roh. It was consisted of his allies and hostages.

Click to expand...

*His army, before crossing Indus, consisted of Mirza (i.e Mughals) and recruits from Afghanistan which were mostly Pashtuns.
*



Are you going to give the credit of baburs victory to his pashtuns of roh. Lol.

Click to expand...

*Actually Khushal Khan Khattak did. He attributes the Babur's victory at battle of Panipat to Pashtuns of Roh. Are you going to insult our great poet? stop Loling
*




Which ever pashton came to India endend up a pashton of hind and were part of the ashrafi class.

Click to expand...

*You and your Indian Ashrafi caste. Pashtuns were not part of any Indian caste, they were just Pashtuns/Afghans.






> No one will disagree with me. Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech (1723 - April 1774) was part and parcel of Mughal nobility. He was colored in their color. Had their habits and was one of them and not part of Barech tribe living hundreds of kilometer away from. He was second generation and I'm sure he spoke pashto but he did not identify with the tribals of Roh. His loyalty was not with them nor did he showed any allegiance to them nor was he bound by their tribal structure. That is one of the reasons Pashtons from different tribes worked well together because they did not identify with their tribal identity but with Rohilla identity


Its amusing to see you struggling with history and coming up with laughable explanations. I am engaging you in discussion because your ignorance about history is entertaining. Hafiz Rahmat Khan was born in Pakhtunkhwa and he migrated to India when he was a grown up man. Refer to his biography "Gulistan-i-Rahmat" written by his son. He was not part of the Mughal nobility, he did not have any mansab. And he displayed a great deal of Pashtun-hood by coming to the rescue of Bangash nawabs on several occasions. If he was an Indian like you, he would not have written books in Pashto and would not have talked about Pashtun tribes in Khulasatul-Ansab.



*



Indeed you are not a Pashtun of hind or sirhind or punjab. You are of tribal badlands and that is the crux of my argument so do don't try to claim our history. You will not define identity of Pashtuns but you are free to define identity of tribal pashtuns because you are one of them

Click to expand...

*You are an Indian and an Urduspeaker and from qaum of Altaf Hussain. You have nothing to do with us or our past.



> Bow down to your overlords and accept facts or go live with your opium addicted brothers across the border


You are mistaking me for a mureed of Altaf Hussain, we dont bow our heads or bend our knees to other human beings like your kind and i am not bragging.



*



No one 'specifically invited' them buddy. They were not worth an invite. You are talking as if the advanced state of Roh brought huge armies to help pashtons of hind and changed the history. Lol

Click to expand...

*Roh was not a state, it was a region with a defined geography. Yes they changed the history, they ensured the survival of Lodi kingdom when it was struggling against much powerful Sharqi kingdom.



icebreaker2 said:


> I just find it hilarious this lunny toon from some godforsaken dirt patch is trying to claim the legacy of the rulers of delhi, Rohillas, nawabs of Oudh, nawabs of Bhopal etc. while at the same time cursing at their descendants. Tell Sheryar Khan that you and not him is the kith and kin of the nawabs of Bhopal and tell me which patch of land was ruled by your great grandfather and what monuments did he build?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahryar_Khan


I admit he is indeed a descendant of Pashtuns, but he is not a Pashtun. His ancestor Dost Muhammad Khan looked behaved, and spoke like those in Tirah , "savage tribals" in your words. Just like 'Syed Mustafa Kamal' is not Arab , in the same way Shahryar Khan is not a Pashtun. Both belongs to the Hindustani Mohajir community.


----------



## Avra

hydrabadi_arab said:


> Sher Shah was persian and hindustani speaker, not pashto. He was 4th generation bihari and looked like one instead of fake portraits modern day nationalists post of him. You are Syed among tribal pashtuns which mean you are fake 100% even if you speak arabic now. Anyone can learn to speak arabic. In Hyderabad arab soldiers migrated and were being employed by muslim rulers who didn't trust local recruits loyalty but they no longer speak arabic. No arab migrated to tribal pashutn lands let alone direct decedent of Muhammad (PBUH).


I am not the one suffering from inferiority complex. I'm not the one putting Arab in my name like some attention w****. If not provoked i wouldn't have mentioned anything related to my being Arab. I'm satisfied wkth being A Pashtun.  i don't conside arab a privilege like some posers think it is. i'm not going to start bragging here how genuinely 'arab' my heritage is. Arabs are perfectly capable of recognizing their own kin, the decision lies entitely with them. They don't need excerpts from books and false theories. And lemme tell you that we know for sure that we are arabs. We do have genes to prove that.  But Are you sure Arabs never migrated here. Cuz our genitics and your history says otherwise. Just because you hate Pashtuns and are desperate to do anything, say anything to prove your hatred is rightful, doesn't mean you can hide the truth by sprouting some misconceptions and false claims. You can go and argue your irrational and biased concepts with the arabs who believe otherwise. Besides Pashtuns weren't the converts of hinduism. Pashtuns were followers of monetheism at the time of Muslim arrival in Afghanistan. Arabs were culturally, genetically and linguistically more closer to the people who were monotheists than to hindus who where the most rebellious lot next to persians at that time.
I'm sure u don't want to embarass youself like your lunatic racist bigot buddy icebreaker2 here who can't stick to one opinion. He's made a total cake of himself by sharing history from 'historical books' written and backed by Angrez sarkar. None of his snippets prove that he is a true descendant of Afghan. His meaningless and incomplete contexts just stated that the Afghans ruled over indian hindus n that's it. Nothing more. 
When did arab migrate to hyderabad? I mean hyderabaadis were hindus right? Why would hindus hire arabs as their soldiers? All i know that when hindus converted to Islam they were too ashamed of their identities cuz most of them belonged to lowerclass. So the easiest solution was to make an afghan tribal name, a turkce or persian title or an arab surname (these are the enthnic groups that ruled over hindustan) their own sur name and claim their tribes as their own. It helped them quiet sufficiently cuz nobody questioned them and their herediatery for a long time. Now the modern science does challenge that and they are unable to prove their ancestry through genetical tests. All your so called syed, arab, afghan and turkic ancestory has been nullified by science. Even the lackowitty pedia agrees with me here. 
Are you really sure he wasn't ethnic Pashtun?? He wasn't bihaari he was just a governor of bihaar at the time ofvmughal rule. If he wasn't pashtun then why is his name pashto like? Do you know the meaning of his name and the tribe? (A minor clearification, his portraits were made by mughals not by pastuns)
Why are you having the 'arab' name after being hyderabaadi? Isn't being 'just hyderabaadi' enough? Doesn't being hyderabaadi hold the same allure as being arab does? Embrace your identity is all i can say to you. There's nothing wrong in being related to the historical hindu caste system. Sugarcoating doesn't help in such significant matters.
We know arabic not because we want to make ppl impress. We don't learn it for anyother reason except to feel closer to our arabness n our arab ancestors. We just want to be able to communicate with them. N we sure as hell don't need to prove our syedness to sleazemongers who are too ashamed of their ancestory that they would grab whatever straw is thrown their way in order to hide their true self.
Lastly i know you haters would say anything to promote hatred. Ethnic cleansing supporters like you even consider molifying us more sacred than offering prayers. So if you are going to get more hateful and utter mre degrading stuff here, don't bother to reply. Cuz i'm not going to correct more of your biased nonsence here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Vishvamitra

Mian Babban said:


> You can satisfy your ego by calling me a racist but i am merely stating established facts. You are right, Afghans/Pashtuns in India did lose their ethnic identity but not within few generations but after becoming fully Indianized. After a century or two , they lost the memory of their Pashtun past and became plain Indians like others. They could not tell their tribe or other details. For example tens of thousands of Pashtuns settled in Bengal during Suri period but hardly few hundreds nowadays are sure that they have some thing to do with Pashtuns and they say so because their last names are Khans which is not a good indicator of being related to Pashtun. The ones in Punjab retained the memory of their Pashtun past because they were close to Pakhtunkhwa and it mattered to them to keep their Afghan identity alive (all of them supported Ahmad Shah Abdlai and his successors against Mughals and Sikhs). They never called themselves Pathans by the way.
> 
> 
> The Pashtuns of those days, in their graves, wont be proud of you and others linked with Altaf Hussain. Their Pashtun heart will be bleeding for Pashtuns of Afghanistan, Pakhtunkhwa, Baluchistan and Karachi. And its not true, Babur army consisted of his own Mirzas and Pashtuns of Roh. He had allies in Ghoria Khels and Dilazaks but his Afghan wife's brother Mir Jamal also accompanied him with 1200 Yousafzais. There were also few thousands Kheshgi Pashtuns in his army who were given Kasur as reward for their settlement. And if you think that Babur had high opinions about Pashtuns settled in India, then you are wrong. In his Baburnama he calls them most Idiotic people out of all in India.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have not read Baburnama. Babur was very eager to earn the friendship of Pashtuns nobles in India and showered favours on them, gave them khilats and confirmed them in their jagirs instead of giving it to his Mirzas. Yet Afghan nobles were rebelling again and again and were not caring about losing jagirs granted by Babur. Why?. Its because of their sense of being Pashtun. If they were not Pashtuns they would not have been so restless and troublesome and would have preferred Mughal service without any hesitation.
> 
> 
> 
> Its because affairs in India did not concern those in Roh unless they were specifically invited to interfere. The Afghan Sultans of India also refrained from interfering in affairs of Roh. Hind was like Karachi, Pashtuns from Roh were migrating there for job opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should read further, Sher Shah betrayed that Raja.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not paying attention to what you are copy pasting. If he was questioning his soldiers in Afghan tongue i.e Pashto then he was obviously a Pashto speaker. Read more, Abbas Sarwani says that Sher Shah greeted his grandfather in Afghan tongue.
> 
> 
> All the human beings in the world will disagree with you. Hafiz Rahmat Khan, one of the greatest figure of Rohillas, was a Pashto speaker and doer, convince me how he has any thing to do with you because you have loudly announced that you have nothing to do with any Pashto speaker.
> 
> 
> We are indeed not Pathans or Pathanis.....we are Pashtun or Afghans......What we say will always define Pashtun identity and what we do will shape Pashtun history. And its your Indian mentality which is looking down upon tribal people. All proper Pashtuns are tribal. "You backward tribal people", thats the language and tone of Indians, not Pashtuns. "A tribe" in Pashtun belt or immediate vicinity which speaks Farsi, Balochi or Punjabi but all of its interests, including political ones, are common with us, then they are Pashtuns. But any Alaf-Hussaini Urdu-speaker is not Pashtun.



Even upper 3 castes have sub tribes (Gotras)


----------



## Mian Babban

hydrabadi_arab said:


> Sher Shah was persian and hindustani speaker, not pashto. He was 4th generation bihari and looked like one instead of fake portraits modern day nationalists post of him. You are Syed among tribal pashtuns which mean you are fake 100% even if you speak arabic now. Anyone can learn to speak arabic. In Hyderabad arab soldiers migrated and were being employed by muslim rulers who didn't trust local recruits loyalty but they no longer speak arabic. No arab migrated to tribal pashutn lands let alone direct decedent of Muhammad (PBUH).


Actually Arabs settled in very large numbers in Northern Afghanistan which they conquered in early days (they did not conquer Pashtun belt down south, only forayed into it)). The early Arab and Persian Geographers like Ibn-i-Haukal , Istakhari etc throw light on the Arab colonies in present-day Northern Afghanistan and gives the numbers of Arabs in each colony. The official history of Mahmud Ghaznavi mentions these Arabs to be the vanguard of his army as cavalry. The term Tazik (Tajik) was at first used for Arab settlers in Persia and Khurasan (including Northern Afghanistan). Its because "Tazi" (from which the term Tazik is derived) was a legendary Arab king who ruled over Persia in ancient times.


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Avra said:


> I am not the one suffering from inferiority complex. I'm not the one putting Arab in my name like some attention w****. If not provoked i wouldn't have mentioned anything related to my being Arab. I'm satisfied wkth being A Pashtun.  i don't conside arab a privilege like some posers think it is. i'm not going to start bragging here how genuinely 'arab' my heritage is. Arabs are perfectly capable of recognizing their own kin, the decision lies entitely with them. They don't need excerpts from books and false theories. And lemme tell you that we know for sure that we are arabs. We do have genes to prove that.  But Are you sure Arabs never migrated here. Cuz our genitics and your history says otherwise. Just because you hate Pashtuns and are desperate to do anything, say anything to prove your hatred is rightful, doesn't mean you can hide the truth by sprouting some misconceptions and false claims. You can go and argue your irrational and biased concepts with the arabs who believe otherwise. Besides Pashtuns weren't the converts of hinduism. Pashtuns were followers of monetheism at the time of Muslim arrival in Afghanistan. Arabs were culturally, genetically and linguistically more closer to the people who were monotheists than to hindus who where the most rebellious lot next to persians at that time.
> I'm sure u don't want to embarass youself like your lunatic racist bigot buddy icebreaker2 here who can't stick to one opinion. He's made a total cake of himself by sharing history from 'historical books' written and backed by Angrez sarkar. None of his snippets prove that he is a true descendant of Afghan. His meaningless and incomplete contexts just stated that the Afghans ruled over indian hindus n that's it. Nothing more.
> When did arab migrate to hyderabad? I mean hyderabaadis were hindus right? Why would hindus hire arabs as their soldiers? All i know that when hindus converted to Islam they were too ashamed of their identities cuz most of them belonged to lowerclass. So the easiest solution was to make an afghan tribal name, a turkce or persian title or an arab surname (these are the enthnic groups that ruled over hindustan) their own sur name and claim their tribes as their own. It helped them quiet sufficiently cuz nobody questioned them and their herediatery for a long time. Now the modern science does challenge that and they are unable to prove their ancestry through genetical tests. All your so called syed, arab, afghan and turkic ancestory has been nullified by science. Even the lackowitty pedia agrees with me here.
> Are you really sure he wasn't ethnic Pashtun?? He wasn't bihaari he was just a governor of bihaar at the time ofvmughal rule. If he wasn't pashtun then why is his name pashto like? Do you know the meaning of his name and the tribe? (A minor clearification, his portraits were made by mughals not by pastuns)
> Why are you having the 'arab' name after being hyderabaadi? Isn't being 'just hyderabaadi' enough? Doesn't being hyderabaadi hold the same allure as being arab does? Embrace your identity is all i can say to you. There's nothing wrong in being related to the historical hindu caste system. Sugarcoating doesn't help in such significant matters.
> We know arabic not because we want to make ppl impress. We don't learn it for anyother reason except to feel closer to our arabness n our arab ancestors. We just want to be able to communicate with them. N we sure as hell don't need to prove our syedness to sleazemongers who are too ashamed of their ancestory that they would grab whatever straw is thrown their way in order to hide their true self.
> Lastly i know you haters would say anything to promote hatred. Ethnic cleansing supporters like you even consider molifying us more sacred than offering prayers. So if you are going to get more hateful and utter mre degrading stuff here, don't bother to reply. Cuz i'm not going to correct more of your biased nonsence here.



From what I am reading icebreaker2 have left you and other nationalist racists speechless. You are direct descendent of Muhammad (PBUH) living among tribals in god forsaken land. Hate to burst your buble but that sound unrealistic. Arabs living in north afghanistan which is tajik land is historically accurate but your story is fake.

Suri was afghan by lineage but by 4th generation he was just like any other ashrafi muslim or their current day descendent urdu speaking pathans. Suri, Lodhi etc non of them were first gen tribal pashtuns. This is what icebreaker is trying to say here. They spoke, behaved like ashrafi muslims and not tribals. I don't give importance to language compared to lineages. Tomorrow all of tribals will be speaking urdu. Certainly those in Karachi over time will loss their pashto and tribal ways along with it.

I don't claim to be Syed, astagfarullah.

"Before Indian independence, Barkas served as the military barracks of the Nizam of Hyderabad. *The Nizams were surrounded by hostile rulers in the Deccan, and chose to employ Arabs instead of local military, these Arabs who formed the bulk of the Nizams' personal army were more reliable as they could not defect to the rival states unlike locals and were trustworthy because the Asaf Jahi rulers also claimed Arab ancestry.* The Arab population increased during this period, settling in mainly in barracks on the outskirts of the walled, gated city."


----------



## Mian Babban

hydrabadi_arab said:


> Suri was afghan by lineage but by 4th generation he was just like any other ashrafi muslim or their current day descendent urdu speaking pathans. Suri, Lodhi etc non of them were first gen tribal pashtuns. This is what icebreaker is trying to say here. They spoke, behaved like ashrafi muslims and not tribals. I don't give importance to language compared to lineages. Tomorrow all of tribals will be speaking urdu. Certainly those in Karachi over time will loss their pashto and tribal ways along with it.


There were indeed cultural, linguistic and racial changes taking place in them and they were getting Indianized with time.........But Icebreaker is making a ridiculous claim that they did not identify themselves as Pashtuns, that they did not act as Pashtuns and considered themselves distinct nation and were not organized along tribal lines. I have already proved to him that it was not the case. Not only they acted as Pashtuns but during the Lodi period they were organized along the tribal lines. Lohanis were under their Lohani chiefs, Sarwanis were under their Sarwani chiefs etc. They were mixed, some were fresh arrivals from Roh while others were descendants of Pashtuns settled during rule of previous dynasties. Some of the could speak Pashto, some could not. Half-Indian Afghans of India were looked down upon by those of Roh. For example a Niazi chieftain of Roh refused to give daughter to the half-Indian nephew of Sher Shah according to Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi. Full Pashtun parentage was held in high esteem by India's Pashtuns for example Sultan Shah Lodi preferred his nephew Bahlol as his successor because he was a full Pashtun while his own son was born from an Indian mother.





__ https://www.facebook.com/


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Mian Babban said:


> There were indeed cultural, linguistic and racial changes taking place in them and they were getting Indianized with time.........But Icebreaker is making a ridiculous claim that they did not identify themselves as Pashtuns, that they did not act as Pashtuns and considered themselves distinct nation and were not organized along tribal lines. I have already proved to him that it was not the case. Not only they acted as Pashtuns but during the Lodi period they were organized along the tribal lines. Lohanis were under their Lohani chiefs, Sarwanis were under their Sarwani chiefs etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/



Icebreaker is making same point that they identified as pathans by lineage and were proud of it. Just like he is and other urdu speaking pathans. If criteria of being pathan is to follow tribal culture and behave like tribals then Lodhi, Suri etc were not pathans. He has provided ample historical proof how they left behind tribal norms and adopted. They were no longer simple 1st gen tribals who came with conquerors as mercenaries.


----------



## icebreaker2

hydrabadi_arab said:


> Foolish to look at history with modern lens. Hate urdu speaking pathans but claim all of their ancestor achievements as their own while living in some tribal village which mean his direct ancestors didn't play any important role in history of subcontinent. ironic
> 
> I fail to see how direct descendants can't claim their heritage while someone else far away can?



No one from his region ruled over Delhi. Lodhi's two previous generation were living in Sirhind and Sher Shah rose through the ranks in bihar. He is confusing medieval politics of India and familial linkages with some type of pashtun nationalism. But the most ridiculous claim is that their descendants have no relationship to them but he as some tribal living in a village from a region from where no pakthun has ever conquered because he shares the last name


Mian Babban said:


> On one hand you are claiming to be from "Ashrafi caste" of Indians from Rampur and on the other hand it triggers you when i call you Indian. You are a confused individual.
> 
> 
> 
> I was not talking about Seraiki belt. Kasur and Malerkotla of Punjab in 18th century (not today's) was on my mind. While they had retained their Afghan identity in 18th century, same is not the case today as they have become completely Punjabized/Indianized. Today very few people in Kasur district identity themselves as 'Pathan' or 'Afghan' even though they could bring forth 20,000 men to the field in early 18th century.
> 
> 
> His army, before crossing Indus, consisted of Mirza (i.e Mughals) and recruits from Afghanistan which were mostly Pashtuns.
> *
> *
> Actually Khushal Khan Khattak did. He attributes the Babur's victory at battle of Panipat to Pashtuns of Roh. Are you going to insult our great poet? stop Loling
> *
> *
> You and your Indian Ashrafi caste. Pashtuns were not part of any Indian caste, they were just Pashtuns/Afghans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its amusing to see you struggling with history and coming up with laughable explanations. I am engaging you in discussion because your ignorance about history is entertaining. Hafiz Rahmat Khan was born in Pakhtunkhwa and he migrated to India when he was a grown up man. Refer to his biography "Gulistan-i-Rahmat" written by his son. He was not part of the Mughal nobility, he did not have any mansab. And he displayed a great deal of Pashtun-hood by coming to the rescue of Bangash nawabs on several occasions. If he was an Indian like you, he would not have written books in Pashto and would not have talked about Pashtun tribes in Khulasatul-Ansab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an Indian and an Urduspeaker and from qaum of Altaf Hussain. You have nothing to do with us or our past.
> 
> 
> You are mistaking me for a mureed of Altaf Hussain, we dont bow our heads or bend our knees to other human beings like your kind and i am not bragging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roh was not a state, it was a region with a defined geography. Yes they changed the history, they ensured the survival of Lodi kingdom when it was struggling against much powerful Sharqi kingdom.
> 
> 
> I admit he is indeed a descendant of Pashtuns, but he is not a Pashtun. His ancestor Dost Muhammad Khan looked behaved, and spoke like those in Tirah , "savage tribals" in your words. Just like 'Syed Mustafa Kamal' is not Arab , in the same way Shahryar Khan is not a Pashtun. Both belongs to the Hindustani Mohajir community.




‘
‘On one hand you are claiming to be from "Ashrafi caste" of Indians from Rampur and on the other hand it triggers you when i call you Indian. You are a confused individual.’


*Ashrafi is no cast moron. Read some history and you will know what it means Afghanistani Pashtun nationalist and feel free to get lost from my country along with your patch of dirt to join your opium addicted brothers. *

*Funny how you disassociate people from their direct ancestors. It will be like if someone goes to America, achieves something great and his descendants claim his heritage which they build on and a moron like you rises from a dirt patch and tells them he belonged to you because they speak English now while their ancestor spoke some Pashto because only ‘Pashto speakers and doers’ can achieve greatness so their heritage belongs to me. *

*The pathans of hind were successful not because of tribalism but because they left that world behind and came into a new world which allowed them to achieve greatness. Tribalism of the form of Roh was left behind. That is not to say they did not have a tribal identity but it’s impact on social structure was very different, alliances formed were not based on historic enmity or friendliness it depended on Jagirs and power politics of medieval India etc. Their success was a result of medieval Indian power politics not Pashtunism as you like to believe. Just like any person’s success after moving to America is the result of American society not pashtun society of KPK *

*India is a modern term used by British to refer to their empire i.e. British India and that included your tribal badlands and after that it was used by the state of India. So, no I’m not Indian. I am Pakistani and my ancestors were men of great position in the fertile lands of UP and Hyderabad Deccan of Turik and Pathan descent who went on to create a far greater heritage and descent for me than yours*


‘I was not talking about Seraiki belt. Kasur and Malerkotla of Punjab in 18th century (not today's) was on my mind. While they had retained their Afghan identity in 18th century, same is not the case today as they have become completely Punjabized/Indianized. Today very few people in Kasur district identity themselves as 'Pathan' or 'Afghan' even though they could bring forth 20,000 men to the field in early 18th century.’


*Again, absolute rubbish. Read above, they are not Indianized. Punjabized and Indianized is not the same thing. Which you are trying to use it as a derogatory term (because of refence to state of India) hasish addicted Afghanistani. Yes their ancestors did do that and I am sure they are no less in valour than any dirt poor tribal. You think your godforsaken tribe can raise 20,000 armed men today? Try it, they will be crushed by Pakistani army*

*They still retain their identity though not the tribal structure. Don’t make bs claims. *



*Kasuri Pathans*


*Qusuri or Kusuri, a pathan of Kasur - Tashrih al-aqvam (1825)*


*Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri*

*When the Zamand section was broken up, the Khweshgi (or also pronounced Kheshki) clan migrated to the Ghorband defile, and a large number marched tence with the Mughal Emperor Babar and found great favour at his hands and those of his son Humayun, One section of them settled at Kasur, and are known as "Qasuria or Kasuri Pathans"[2]*


*The Qasuria or kasuri Pathans increased in numbers and importance until the chiefs thought themselves strong enough to refuse to pay tribute to the Mughals. After some severe fighting the Qasuria Pathans were compelled to give in, they never lost heart however and maintained their independence until 1807, when they were finally subdued by the Sikhs. After the confiscation of Kasur by Ranjit Singh, the Pathans were ordered to remain on the left bank of the Sutlej where their leader was assigned the Jagir of Mamdot, in Firozpur District. The Mamdot family emigrated to Pakistan, after the independence in 1947. One portion of Kasuri Pathan most called Amchozi settled in Bahawalnagar district at Nadir Shah village near to Bahawalnagar city. Bahawalnagar one Bazar name is Nadir Shah Bazar. These Pathan are landlord as well as in government services. Akbar Khan Amchozi is a graduate civil engineer and working as director engineer in Punjab province.*


‘His army, before crossing Indus, consisted of Mirza (i.e Mughals) and recruits from Afghanistan which were mostly Pashtuns.’

*They are alive to this day to claim their heritage so no moron from amu darya can claim it because they don’t live a medieval lifestyle and speak the same language. Every area he conquered he was picking up allies and making enemies. It is called medieval warfare and that is the point I made which went over your head.*


‘Actually Khushal Khan Khattak did. He attributes the Babur's victory at battle of Panipat to Pashtuns of Roh. Are you going to insult our great poet? stop Loling’


*You have been claiming all Pashtuns were one body and now you are saying they sided with Babur. Stop jumping over the fence and make up your mind. You are contradicting yourself. *

*Firstly, never take claims in the medieval books you started to quote me on face value. Modern day historians gather data from multiple sources and verify before they accept a claim. This doubly stands true for poets.*

*Khushal kahna khatak gave credit to Pashtuns of Roh. Lol. Who was he going to give credit to. Martians of mars. History is not verified by showing respect. I think he was suffering from apnay moo mian mithu syndrome*

*What you are saying is akin to giving credit of building the pyramids in Egypt to jews and not the pharaohs. They were subjects of babur, babur was not their subject. First you wanted to claim the heritage of Pashtuns of Indus-gangetic plains and now you want to claim the glory of Mughals. Lol*


‘You and your Indian Ashrafi caste. Pashtuns were not part of any Indian caste, they were just Pashtuns/Afghans.’

*As I said earlier there is no such thing as Ashrafi caste, opium addicted Afghanistani. The people who claim descent from them to this day call themselves pathans as their ancestors of male lineage did and that is part of their ethnic identity. Though they have nothing to do with you tribals just like their ancestors differentiated themselves from you and left that world behind and went on to build great monument etc. which your ancestors could not match even in their dreams. *


*Read carefully: It says although the Rohilla Chiefs were generally looked upon as ashraf muslims who cherished an urban and literate life style….*









‘Its amusing to see you struggling with history and coming up with laughable explanations. I am engaging you in discussion because your ignorance about history is entertaining. Hafiz Rahmat Khan was born in Pakhtunkhwa and he migrated to India when he was a grown up man. Refer to his biography "Gulistan-i-Rahmat" written by his son. He was not part of the Mughal nobility, he did not have any mansab. And he displayed a great deal of Pashtun-hood by coming to the rescue of Bangash nawabs on several occasions. If he was an Indian like you, he would not be writing books in Pashto and talking about Pashtun tribes in Khulasatul-Ansab.’


*My apologies he was born in Mardan and was the uncle of Ali Muhammad Khan (grandson of Bahadur Shah I) and that caused confusion. I don’t need to read every book on the planet to know and understand history. His Father was settled in Rohailkhand.*








*There is no question about him not being part and parcel of the nobility of Mughals. He served the Mughals as Viceroy against Ahmed Sahah Durrani ( See the passage below). It fully supports my interpretation of history and the interpretation of history by reputable historians. Writing books in Pashto does not make him not part of Mughal nobility. Which language do you think he spoke when he interacted with nobility of India and was mentoring Prince Mirza Jawan Bakht, was running his jaghirs and conducting interregional trade and trade with central asia (Prsian and Urdu/Hisndustani). He ordered numerous translations into Persian from Pashto. Don’t forget the only Pashto manuscripts that came out of Rampur were from Hafiz Rahamat Khan Bareech. Their descents into early 20th century were teaching their children to write down their ancestries and broke their hands if they made mistake. So explain to me how him writing about his ancestry makes him related to you.*


*Gulistan-i-Rahmat is written in Persian. Wonder how a Pashtu speaker and Pashto doer’s son will be writing in Persian and not Pashto and relate more with Persian and Ashrafi society than the society of the pashtuns of roh. Read below about their social structure and how much tribalism played a part in their lives *







*She is the inheritor of the legacy of Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech not you a tribal from a dirt patch in middle of nowhere.*

https://nuzhat888.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/four-generations-of-hafiz-rahmat-khan-barech/


*Why do you think he helped Bangash nawabs of UP. Is it because their tribal leaders from Roh told them to do so. Lol. I don’t find a history where Pathans of India were running back to Roh to show their allegiance to your kind. Bangash nawabs themselves were part and parcel of Mughal nobility (also happened to be mansabdars) and part of Mughal army and had alliance with other nobility of the court. Ethnicity had little to do with alliance formation although pathans of hind did have a loose confederacy if they were close enough and powerful enough. What you are trying to say is that because the blacks in America identify with each other so they all belong to Angola.lol*

*Another hole in your BS about them identifying with Roh for centuries and maintaining tribal structure *







*Here is another one about warfare between Rohillas and Bangash*

*



*


*Third generation of Bangah Nawabs were writing poetry in Urdu i.e. Nawab Mustafa Khan Shefta and had moved from Persian. Their bread and butter was with nobility of India and that is culture they considered their own when they came to this land.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawab_Mustafa_Khan_Shefta


*Hafiz Rahmat Khan *

*Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech (1723 - April 1774) was Regent of Rohilkhand in North India, from 1749 to 1774.[1] He was a Pashtun by background, ruling over Rohillas. Hafiz Rahmat Khan had served honorably throughout the reign of three Mughal Emperors: Ahmad Shah Bahadur, Alamgir II and Shah Alam II. He was also a mentor of Prince Mirza Jawan Bakht.*


*Early life an origins*

*In 1623 two Pashtun brothers of the Barech tribe, Bahadur Shah I and Husain Khan, settled here and founded a small state of Rampur, bringing with them many other Pashtun settlers. Ali Muhammad Khan, grandson of Bahadur Shah I, later united the Rohillas between 1707 and 1720, making Bareilly his capital. Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech, who was his uncle, succeeded him, extended his power from Almora in the North to Etawah in the South-West.*


*Victory against Ahmad Shah Durrani (1748)*

*In the year 1748, Ahmad Shah Durrani led an expedition to plunder the western regions of the Mughal Empire. This incursion posed as a major challenge to the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah, who urgently Asaf Jah I from the Deccan in order to lead the Mughal Army based in the North-West South Asia, this army was also headed by Prince Ahmad Shah and according to the advise of Ali Mohammed Khan, Hafiz Rahmat Khan was appointed as the Subedar of Sirhind in order to lead and regain and recover territories from the Durrani,[2] forces even Muradyab Khan Kalhoro the Subedar of Sindh to dispatch reinforcements to assist the Mughal Army along the river banks.*


*Prince Ahmad and the respected Grand Vizier Asaf Jah I were dispatched by the Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah to command a large Mughal Army of 75,000 to confront the advancing Durrani's. At Sirhind both forces fought a decisive battle and Prince Ahmad was nominally victorious. He was thereupon conferred with the title Bahadur, by the Mughal Emperor.*


*Mughal Civil War*

*According to a Firman by Ahmad Shah Bahadur Hafiz Rahmat Khan was assigned to support Feroze Jung III against the Mughal Grand Vizier Safdarjung, who was defeated and forgiven and thus withdrew to become just the Nawab of Awadh and died in 1753.*


*When Ahmad Shah Bahadur tried to have young Feroze Jung III removed from the imperial court, the outcast then sought an alliance with the detested Maratha chieftain Sadashivrao Bhau. Together they deposed Ahmad Shah Bahadur after the devastating First Battle of Sikandarabad in the year 1754.*


*Since then Hafiz Rahmat Khan entered the service of Najib-ul-Daula and constantly fought the Marathas led by Sadashivrao Bhau and opposed Feroze Jung III.*


*Alliance with the Ahmad Shah Durrani*

*In 1757, the Mughal Emperor Alamgir II with courtiers such as Shah Waliullah, nobles such as Najib-ul-Daula and Hafiz Rahmat Khan, and the imperial family went to Sirhind to meet Ahmad Shah Durrani, whose forces then engaged the Marathas in combat and threatened to overthrow and execute the regime of Imad-ul-Mulk. Ahmad Shah Durrani's relations with the Mughal Emperor, strengthened further when his son Timur Shah Durrani married the daughter of Alamgir II and patronized the Mughal commander Jahan Khan.*


*Third Battle of Panipat*

*He played an important part in Indian warfare over several decades, being on the winning side at the Third Battle of Panipat of 1761, but was defeated and killed in the Rohilla War.[3] In 1772 Rohilkhand was invaded and conquered by the Marathas.*


*Counterattacks against Suraj Mal*

*In the year 1764, Najib-ul-Daula the administrator of Delhi and the Mughal heartlands faces the relentless warfare by Jat peasants led by the ruthless Suraj Mal, who sacked the Mughal Army garrison at Agra and even looted the silver doors of the Taj Mahal, Hafiz Rahmat Khan was among those commanders in Mughal service who swore to avenge the devastation caused and soon Suraj Mal was defeated and executed.*


*Internal conflict with Awadh*

*After the war Nawab Shuja-ud-Daula demanded payment for their help from the Rohilla chief, Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech. When the demand was refused the Nawab joined with the British under Governor Warren Hastings and his Commander-in-Chief, Alexander Champion, to invade Rohilkhand and Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech was killed in the ensuing battle at Miranpur Katra in 1774. The whole of Rohilkhand (including Bareilly, Pilibhit and Shahjanpur) was surrendered to the East India Company by the treaty of November 10, 1801. Later, Bareilly was a centre of disaffection for the entire area in the Indian Mutiny of 1857. [4]*


‘You are an Indian and an Urduspeaker and from qaum of Altaf Hussain. You have nothing to do with us or our past.’

*No I’m not Indian, Afghanistani opium addicted tribal as I explained to you earlier. As a member of the qoum of Fazlullah, TTP, shahi syed, Fazl-ur-Rehman and opium addicted Afghanistani you have nothing to do with the patahans of hind, their glory and their descendants. *


‘You are mistaking me for a mureed of Altaf Hussain, we dont bow our heads or bend our knees to other human beings and i am not bragging.’

*You are one joker aren’t you. Your history is the history of bowing down to other people first to Persians, then to central Asians, possibly to Maurians, to the Sikhs and to the British. What makes you think you are supernatural beings, moron. You have culturally always been dominated by other people. Pashtuns are defined as an interregional community ravaged by time (by many), not great conquers (by anyone)*


‘Roh was not a state, it was a region with a defined geography. Yes they changed the history, they ensured the survival of Lodi kingdom when it was struggling against much powerful Sharqi kingdom.’


*Have you heard of sarcasm? The point being there was no great state of Roh. A passage of a book mentioning lodi allied with the tribes by giving them money and land to fight Sharqi dynasty does not mean they changed history. If you have to find a needle in a haystack to find glory and claim other people’s heritage (i.e. Pathans of Hind) as your own then you have nothing to claim. You want to know history of great people. Read history of Persians, Turks, Mongols and Greeks. If you pathans of Roh were so great then roh would have been the capital of the subcontinent, not Delhi and we all would have been speaking Pashtu and following it’s cultural traditions but you are the one following the traditions of my ancestors which includes pathans of hind.*


‘I admit he is indeed a descendant of Pashtuns, but he is not a Pashtun. His ancestor Dost Muhammad Khan looked behaved, and spoke like those in Tirah , "savage tribals" in your words. Just like 'Syed Mustafa Kamal' is not Arab, in the same way Shahryar Khan is not a Pashtun. Both belongs to the Hindustani Mohajir community.’


*No he is a pashtun. World over they are called Urdu speaking Pathans which is a widely acknowledge and used term. He is not a ‘Pashto speaker and doer’(whatever that means) and looks down upon you and your way of life because they became civilized and differentiated from you from the very beginning. Which led to them being successful.*

Here are all the screenshots in sequence as they are not showing up


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

icebreaker2 said:


> No one from his region ruled over Delhi. Lodhi's two previous generation were living in Sirhind and Sher Shah rose through the ranks in bihar. He is confusing medieval politics of India and familial linkages with some type of pashtun nationalism. But the most ridiculous claim is that their descendants have no relationship to them but he as some tribal living in a village from a region from where no pakthun has ever conquered because he shares the last name



This racist villager tribal with access to internet is losing his mind. For him cultured people and urban life style is inferior or as he call it being indianzed lol. Why even in tribal society people with homes and lands are considered superior to nomads?


----------



## karakoram

Very informative thread


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> No one from his region ruled over Delhi. Lodhi's two previous generation were living in Sirhind and Sher Shah rose through the ranks in bihar. He is confusing medieval politics of India and familial linkages with some type of pashtun nationalism. But the most ridiculous claim is that their descendants have no relationship to them but he as some tribal living in a village from a region from where no pakthun has ever conquered because he shares the last name


I think in this and previous posts you are claiming that no one from Pakhtunkhwa/Roh has made any conquests, that only those who got Indianized after several generations, were able to emerge as rulers and conquerors. Basically you claiming that Pashtuns from their native lands never produced rulers and conquerors. I am going to enrich your knowledge on this. Shah Mir Swati , an adventurer from Swat, established the first Muslim dynasty of Kashmir. Dost Muhammad Khan Orakzai from Tirah went to India and conquered Bhopal and founded a dynasty with the help of his clansmen from Tirah. Tirah is in present-day FATA , tribal areas. Najib Khan Yousafzai from Buner (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) went to India , enlisted himself as a common soldier but made so much progress that he ruled Delhi for ten years as a dictator. I have already mentioned Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech. Now lets come to Persia. A Ghilzai army from Kanadahar led by Mahmud Hotak invaded and conquered Persia in 1722. Dont you know about that?. His father Mirwais had established independent emirate of Kandahar in 1708. Azad Khan Sulieman Khel from Ghazni ruled Azerbajian and North-western Persia for eight years. Read about him. And our Ahmad Shah Abdali had second largest Muslim empire after Ottomans in that age.

*



The pathans of hind were successful not because of tribalism but because they left that world behind and came into a new world which allowed them to achieve greatness. Tribalism of the form of Roh was left behind. That is not to say they did not have a tribal identity but it’s impact on social structure was very different, alliances formed were not based on historic enmity or friendliness it depended on Jagirs and power politics of medieval India etc. Their success was a result of medieval Indian power politics not Pashtunism as you like to believe. Just like any person’s success after moving to America is the result of American society not pashtun society of KPK

Click to expand...

*Thats not true. They were successful , daring and enterprising as long as they had vigour and spirit of Pashtun. They became degenerated and degraded when they lost every thing that makes one Pashtun.

*



India is a modern term used by British to refer to their empire i.e. British India and that included your tribal badlands and after that it was used by the state of India. So, no I’m not Indian. I am Pakistani and my ancestors were men of great position in the fertile lands of UP and Hyderabad Deccan of Turik and Pathan descent who went on to create a far greater heritage and descent for me than yours

Click to expand...

*Rampur was a small state. You are blowing things our of proportion. No you do not have "great" heritage and descent. For Hindus and "Ajlafs", you are just an ordinary Indian Muslim. Linkage with a petty state of Rampur does not grant you wings and horns.


*



You have been claiming all Pashtuns were one body

Click to expand...

*Where i made such a comment? they were never one body and are still not one body . They are tribal people and each tribe and family had their own interests and priorities. Some supported British, some opposed British.
* 



First you wanted to claim the heritage of Pashtuns of Indus-gangetic plains and now you want to claim the glory of Mughals. Lol

Click to expand...

*No i am not doing that. It was rather unfortunate that Pashtun mercenaries of Roh in the army of Babur were cutting down their Lodi brethren at the battle of Panipat. A similar scene had happened before in which Pashtun chieftains from Roh in the army of Amir Timur were fighting against Mallu Iqbal Khan Lodi, the Afghan Wazir of Tughlaq empire.


*



As I said earlier there is no such thing as Ashrafi caste, opium addicted Afghanistani. The people who claim descent from them to this day call themselves pathans as their ancestors of male lineage did and that is part of their ethnic identity. Though they have nothing to do with you tribals just like their ancestors differentiated themselves from you and left that world behind and went on to build great monument etc. which your ancestors could not match even in their dreams.

Click to expand...

*Superior Ashraf caste !.....its your insecurity and inferiority complex speaking. Honestly its cringy. For us you all are one and same i.e Hindis




> Read carefully: It says although the Rohilla Chiefs were generally looked upon as ashraf muslims who cherished an urban and literate life style….


They might have started calling themselves Ashrafis after becoming thoroughly Indianzied but they were not part of this non-sense when they were Pashtuns. Bahadur Khan Daudzai who was born in Peshawar and accompanied his father to India, founded Shahjahanpur city in 1647 and invited Pashtuns from 52 tribes of Roh. For each tribe he assigned a Mohallah so that the city had 52 Mohallahs. Thats tribal organization of Pashtuns.


*



My apologies he was born in Mardan and was the uncle of Ali Muhammad Khan (grandson of Bahadur Shah I) and that caused confusion. I don’t need to read every book on the planet to know and understand history. His Father was settled in Rohailkhand.

Click to expand...

*Apologies accepted (good to see that you are consulting books) but his father Shah Alam was not settled in Rohilkhand. He visited Rohilkhand to meet his run away slave Daud Khan (to convince him to return back to Roh) and during return journey, he was murdered by some robbers. So he is buried there. And you are talking about which Bahadur Shah I?. The Mughal King Bahadur Shah I died in 1712 and he was not related to any Rohilla.






*



There is no question about him not being part and parcel of the nobility of Mughals. He served the Mughals as Viceroy against Ahmed Sahah Durrani ( See the passage below). It fully supports my interpretation of history and the interpretation of history by reputable historians. Writing books in Pashto does not make him not part of Mughal nobility. Which language do you think he spoke when he interacted with nobility of India and was mentoring Prince Mirza Jawan Bakht, was running his jaghirs and conducting interregional trade and trade with central asia (Prsian and Urdu/Hisndustani). He ordered numerous translations into Persian from Pashto. Don’t forget the only Pashto manuscripts that came out of Rampur were from Hafiz Rahamat Khan Bareech. Their descents into early 20th century were teaching their children to write down their ancestries and broke their hands if they made mistake. So explain to me how him writing about his ancestry makes him related to you.

Click to expand...

*Let me repeat myself. He was not a mansabdar of Mughal empire. It was Najib-ud-Daulah who was mansabdar of Mughal empire. Strictly speaking, Rohillas of Doab under regency of Hafiz Rahmat Khan were 'rebels' of Mughal empire. They were not sending income to the treasury of Delhi and were not bound by firmans of Delhi emperor.

*



Gulistan-i-Rahmat is written in Persian. Wonder how a Pashtu speaker and Pashto doer’s son will be writing in Persian and not Pashto and relate more with Persian and Ashrafi society than the society of the pashtuns of roh. Read below about their social structure and how much tribalism played a part in their lives

Click to expand...

*So? Farsi was also lingua franca of Roh and entire present-day Afghanistan. Farsi is the national language of Afghanistan . What you have any thing to do with Farsi? you are a Hindi speaker

*



She is the inheritor of the legacy of Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech not you a tribal from a dirt patch in middle of nowhere.

Click to expand...

*
https://nuzhat888.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/four-generations-of-hafiz-rahmat-khan-barech/ [/QUOTE]






So these ladies are descendants of Hafiz Rahmat Khan the Pashtun. They are just Indian looking people who dress like any other Indian. Hafiz Rahmat Khan was a Barech Pashtun, these ladies are not. They are just Indian Muslims of 'Ashraf' or 'Ajlaf' caste.






*



Here is another one about warfare between Rohillas and Bangash

Click to expand...

*Disunity is key feature of Pashtuns and Qaim Khan Bangash attacked Rohillas on instigation of Safdar Janh who had eyes on Bangash's territories. Rohillas defeated Bangashs, and Safdar Jang occupied the Farrukhabad of weakened Bangashs. It was sentiment of Pashtun brotherhood that Hafiz Rahmat Khan did not tolerate the destruction of Bangashs at the hands of Awadh and subsequently helped his brethren, not just on this occasion but also on other occasions concerning Marathas.



> *No I’m not Indian, Afghanistani opium addicted tribal as I explained to you earlier. As a member of the qoum of Fazlullah, TTP, shahi syed, Fazl-ur-Rehman and opium addicted Afghanistani you have nothing to do with the patahans of hind, their glory and their descendants.*


Typical MQM mindset. The inferiority complex of Ajlafs. Your sorts are claiming to be the heirs of Lodi and Sur emperors while other MQM-walas are calling themselves heir and grandchildren of of Mughal emperors....the fact is majority of Indian Muslims were converts from low castes of Hinduism according to historians.

*



What makes you think you are supernatural beings, moron. You have culturally always been dominated by other people. Pashtuns are defined as an interregional community ravaged by time (by many), not great conquers (by anyone)

Click to expand...

*We do not claim to be supernatural or superior beings. Its you and your kind who are have low self esteem and are wannabe Pashtuns. You people link yourselves to us to feel great or superior or some thing like that. Be yourselves and you people will be at ease. As about what Pashtuns could do. The "dirt poor" Pashtuns decimated your Maratha kin at the battle of Panipat.


*



A passage of a book mentioning lodi allied with the tribes by giving them money and land to fight Sharqi dynasty does not mean they changed history.

Click to expand...

*Actually Lodi kingdom would not have survived without the help from tribes of Roh. Sharqi army had besieged Delhi, the capital, and Bahlol had only a small army of his own.
*



If you pathans of Roh were so great then roh would have been the capital of the subcontinent, not Delhi and we all would have been speaking Pashtu and following it’s cultural traditions but you are the one following the traditions of my ancestors which includes pathans of hind.

Click to expand...

*Roh was an independent territory, wild wild west, no kings or kingdoms.........Here is snippet from Afsana-i-Shahan




It was only in 18th century that Pashtuns realized that they need to have their own state or kingdom

And i forget to mention. Pashtuns at Mau did not like the Nawabi and Indian life style of Nawab Muhammad Khan Bangash








hydrabadi_arab said:


> This racist villager tribal with access to internet is losing his mind. For him cultured people and urban life style is inferior or as he call it being indianzed lol. Why even in tribal society people with homes and lands are considered superior to nomads?



I am in awe of Indians


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

If dark skin made someone non-pathan then I have bad news for you. Many tribals are dark skinned. You run out of logical arguments now have fallen back on racism. If you mix with Russian or American soldier that would make you even more whiter but also just another tribal. Not same as being direct descendent of Lodhis and Suris. Your direct ancestors didn't play any role in Hindustan power politics. Those who did are known as urdu speakers pathans today.

Your tribals are deobandis, who introduced this ideology to you?


----------



## Mian Babban

hydrabadi_arab said:


> If dark skin made someone non-pathan then I have bad news for you. Many tribals are dark skinned. You run out of logical arguments now have fallen back on racism. If you mix with Russian or American soldier that would make you even more whiter but also just another tribal. Not same as being direct descendent of Lodhis and Suris. Your direct ancestors didn't play any role in Hindustan power politics. Those who did are known as urdu speakers pathans today.
> 
> Your tribals are deobandis, who introduced this ideology to you?


But i did not mention skin colour any where, why you are weeping about your dark skin?. There is a Pashtun face and then there is Indian face. The ladies are Indians, are you trying to convince me they are not?

Here is typical Irano-Afghan face according to Anthropologists






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irano-Afghan_race


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Mian Babban said:


> But i did not mention skin colour any where, why you are weeping about your dark skin?. There is a Pashtun face and then there is Indian face. The ladies are Indians, are you trying to convince me they are not?
> 
> Here is typical Irano-Afghan face according to Anthropologists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irano-Afghan_race


Barech could have looked like malala father






or mashal khan father






There is no pashtun face. Only light skinned are not pashtuns. Racism make people retards. Quoting 19th century outdated anthropology. lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mian Babban

hydrabadi_arab said:


> Barech could have looked like malala father
> 
> 
> There is no pashtun face. Only light skinned are not pashtuns. Racism make people retards. Quoting 19th century outdated anthropology. lol


You and your Indian insecurities about Skin colour. You are simply trolling on this thread my Indian friend. I am giving attention and time to Icebreaker because he is actually talking about history on history section. Silently read the debate between me and him.


----------



## hydrabadi_arab

Mian Babban said:


> You and your Indian insecurities about Skin colour. You are simply trolling on this thread my Indian friend. I am giving attention and time to Icebreaker because he is actually talking about history on history section. Silently read the debate between me and him.



You are the one saying urdu speakers don't have any claim based on skin colour, talk about insecurities eh? Now see faces of malala father and mashal father and get this mentality out of your head.


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> There were indeed cultural, linguistic and racial changes taking place in them and they were getting Indianized with time.........But Icebreaker is making a ridiculous claim that they did not identify themselves as Pashtuns, that they did not act as Pashtuns and considered themselves distinct nation and were not organized along tribal lines. I have already proved to him that it was not the case. Not only they acted as Pashtuns but during the Lodi period they were organized along the tribal lines. Lohanis were under their Lohani chiefs, Sarwanis were under their Sarwani chiefs etc. They were mixed, some were fresh arrivals from Roh while others were descendants of Pashtuns settled during rule of previous dynasties. Some of the could speak Pashto, some could not. Half-Indian Afghans of India were looked down upon by those of Roh. For example a Niazi chieftain of Roh refused to give daughter to the half-Indian nephew of Sher Shah according to Tarikh-i-Sher Shahi. Full Pashtun parentage was held in high esteem by India's Pashtuns for example Sultan Shah Lodi preferred his nephew Bahlol as his successor because he was a full Pashtun while his own son was born from an Indian mother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/



I never made the claim they did not identify as Pashtuns, their ancestors still do. They did not identify as Pashtuns of Roh. Whole sub tribes moved together so they had enough of them there to not rely on Roh

They were differentiated from the pashtuns of Roh. They did belong to different tribes so do many pashtuns in modern day Paksiatan and India retain and identify with their tribal names but do not identify with your kind. When their closest kith and Kin moved with them they no longer had any connections other than trade and new arrivals coming in their service

That is a fact. They were living in a different place with different realities. I have made this amply clear to you. the inter-tribal relationships were not the same, neither the tribal structure nor the property right. Their relationships with everyone else and themselves was defined by Zamindari and other realities of the land.


----------



## icebreaker2

"Mian Babban, post: 9549855, member: 184739"]I think in this and previous posts you are claiming that no one from Pakhtunkhwa/Roh has made any conquests, that only those who got Indianized after several generations, were able to emerge as rulers and conquerors. Basically you claiming that Pashtuns from their native lands never produced rulers and conquerors. I am going to enrich your knowledge on this. Shah Mir Swati , an adventurer from Swat, established the first Muslim dynasty of Kashmir. Dost Muhammad Khan Orakzai from Tirah went to India and conquered Bhopal and founded a dynasty with the help of his clansmen from Tirah. Tirah is in present-day FATA , tribal areas. Najib Khan Yousafzai from Buner (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) went to India , enlisted himself as a common soldier but made so much progress that he ruled Delhi for ten years as a dictator. I have already mentioned Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech. Now lets come to Persia. A Ghilzai army from Kanadahar led by Mahmud Hotak invaded and conquered Persia in 1722. Dont you know about that?. His father Mirwais had established independent emirate of Kandahar in 1708. Azad Khan Sulieman Khel from Ghazni ruled Azerbajian and North-western Persia for eight years. Read about him. And our Ahmad Shah Abdali had second largest Muslim empire after Ottomans in that age.

*No, read very carefully what I wrote. No pashtun from Roh ruled over Delhi. Don't try and tell me Ahmed Shah Abdali ruled over Delhi.

Both Dost Muhammad Khan Orakzai and Najib Khan Yousafzai were 'emigrants' not conquerors. I don't need you make a point for me. Same goes for Hafiz Rahmat Khan. Come up with something better. Here is something to enlighten you about Shah Mir Swati. Do a simply google search before writing bs.*

*There are two theories regarding Shah Mir's origin. Historian A. Q. Rafiqi states that some Persian chronicles of Kashmir describe Shah Mir as a descendent of the rulers of Swat.[a] He thinks it more likely that he was a descedent of Turkish or Persian immigrants to Swat.[2] It has also been suggested that he belonged to a Sufi or Qadiri family.[3]*

*On the other hand, the 15th century Kashmiri historian Jonaraja, writing in the court of Shah Mir's descendant Budshah, states that Shah Mir came to Kashmir along with his tribe from the country of Panchagahvara (identified as the Panjgabbar valley between Rajouri and Budhal). He was said to belong to the family of an ancestor called Partha, who was described as a second Partha (an allusion to the Mahabharata hero Arjuna).[4][5] Some scholars state that the Panjgabbar valley was peopled by Khasas and so ascribe a Khasa ethnicity to Shah Mir.[6][7][8]

Most modern historians accept the Swati origins of Shah Mir.[3][9][10][11] Kashmiri scholar N. K. Zutshi, having critically examined the sources, reconciles the two versions by noting that the Persian chronicles mentions Swadgir rather than Swat, which he interprets as Swadgabar, meaning "suburbs of Gabar", which coincides with Jonaraja's description of Panchagahvara-Simani (on the borders of Panchagagvara).[12]*

A. Q. Rafiqi states:

*Shah Mir arrived in Kashmir in 1313 along with his family, during the reign of Suhadeva (1301–1320), whose service he entered. In subsequent years, through his tact and ability Shah Mir rose to prominence and became one of the most important personalities of his time.[13]*

*No one disagrees that for most of their history pashtuns of Roh have been ruled by non-pashtuns*


Thats not true. They were successful , daring and enterprising as long as they had vigour and spirit of Pashtun. They became degenerated and degraded when they lost every thing that makes one Pashtun.

*They were very enterprising no doubt they lived on trade routes. They were bold too as many are but that does not hold true only if you are pathan. Many people have these attributes.

Case in point. Look at the pathetic situation in Afghanistan, the nation of Bacha Baaz and think before you reply.*


Rampur was a small state. You are blowing things our of proportion. No you do not have "great" heritage and descent. For Hindus and "Ajlafs", you are just an ordinary Indian Muslim. Linkage with a petty state of Rampur does not grant you wings and horns.

*I am of a descendant of rulers of Hyderabad deccan. Search on google you will know how big or small they were. I am in no delusion about my history. I know very well who Rohillas were. Now share with me whose direct descendant you are and which kingdom's nobility your great grandfather was part of.*

Where i made such a comment? they were never one body and are still not one body . They are tribal people and each tribe and family had their own interests and priorities. Some supported British, some opposed British.
* 
*
No i am not doing that. It was rather unfortunate that Pashtun mercenaries of Roh in the army of Babur were cutting down their Lodi brethren at the battle of Panipat. A similar scene had happened before in which Pashtun chieftains from Roh in the army of Amir Timur were fighting against Mallu Iqbal Khan Lodi, the Afghan Wazir of Tughlaq empire.

*You have claimed it again gain ex. telling me Rohillas showed great pashton hood by helping the Bangash Nawabs. 

Obviously they didn't agree with you and your interpretation of history is wrong. Funny you never mention the names of these chiefs of Roh because you probably have a hard time finding them in the books you like to quote which are not considered neutral historical records by anyone. Case in point. Read the document below carefully. It challenges your claim about rohilla nawabs ancestry. *

*Also if you have a keen eye you will notice the difference in narrative between the the two. Pashtuns of Rohilla are always mentioned as tribes fighting while the ones in hind are mostly mentioned as a certain person of power fighting with his troops. Another point which I have consistently made*
















Superior Ashraf caste !.....its your insecurity and inferiority complex speaking. Honestly its cringy. For us you all are one and same i.e Hindis

*Again moron there is no such thing as Ashrafi caste. Firstly clarify who is 'us'. Secondly what makes you think I care about what a low life tribal like you has to say about me. I suffer from no inferiority complex. You are suffering from inferiority complex as you like to claim other people's history.*


They might have started calling themselves Ashrafis after becoming thoroughly Indianzied but they were not part of this non-sense when they were Pashtuns. Bahadur Khan Daudzai who was born in Peshawar and accompanied his father to India, founded Shahjahanpur city in 1647 and invited Pashtuns from 52 tribes of Roh. For each tribe he assigned a Mohallah so that the city had 52 Mohallahs. Thats tribal organization of Pashtuns.

* I have stated this earlier before. It's another example of power consolidation. Even the Mughals settled tribes from Roh in hind. Many ruling families settled people of different ethnic backgrounds to consolidate power. It was not because they were crying out for pashtun nationhood or because of any tribal organization. It is a fact that tribalism took back seat in hind. 

You have no understanding of power politics in medieval India or Afghan migration into Hind. *

Apologies accepted (good to see that you are consulting books) but his father Shah Alam was not settled in Rohilkhand. He visited Rohilkhand to meet his run away slave Daud Khan (to convince him to return back to Roh) and during return journey, he was murdered by some robbers. So he is buried there. And you are talking about which Bahadur Shah I?. The Mughal King Bahadur Shah I died in 1712 and he was not related to any Rohilla.






*Yes he was. I quoted you the source. No I am not talking about Bahadur Shah I the Mughal emperor. Figure it out for yourself.*

Let me repeat myself. He was not a mansabdar of Mughal empire. It was Najib-ud-Daulah who was mansabdar of Mughal empire. Strictly speaking, Rohillas of Doab under regency of Hafiz Rahmat Khan were 'rebels' of Mughal empire. They were not sending income to the treasury of Delhi and were not bound by firmans of Delhi emperor.

*I never said he was a mansabdar. I said he was part of Mughal nobility which he was. He was not even a nawab of Rhoillas he was a reagent ruling for his nephew. So don't try to twist my words. 

"Rebels of Mughals" Read what i wrote moron. Go back and have a look. Mughal courtiers were rebelling against Mughals when he rebelled so were the Nawabs of Oudh and the future Nizams of Deccan. You really have no understanding of medieval politics of India or medieval politics in general. History can be summarized as former subjects rebelling against their ruler when they get weak.*

So? Farsi was also lingua franca of Roh and entire present-day Afghanistan. Farsi is the national language of Afghanistan . What you have any thing to do with Farsi? you are a Hindi speaker

*Firstly I am a Urdu speaker ( learn the difference between what modern day terminologies of Hindi and Urdu denote), Afghanistani charsi bacha baz, which took over as the ligua franca of the subcontinent from Persian and that is the reason that till this date Muslims all over the subcontinent speak Urdu and it is the national language of Pakistan. The reason I pointed out Persian was because the uncultured people of what is now KPK did not use Persian as language of their daily use either now or back then but Pathans of hind did along with Urdu. That's why Pashto lost significance very quickly. Which is another point differentiating the two.*

https://nuzhat888.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/four-generations-of-hafiz-rahmat-khan-barech/ [/QUOTE]






So these ladies are descendants of Hafiz Rahmat Khan the Pashtun. They are just Indian looking people who dress like any other Indian. Hafiz Rahmat Khan was a Barech Pashtun, these ladies are not. They are just Indian Muslims of 'Ashraf' or 'Ajlaf' caste.

*I know you have learnt a few new words but learn what they mean and don't overuse them. Yes they are the descendants of Hafiz Rahmat Khan. Have a look at a picture of Babur and Bahadur shah zafar and then go tell the world Bahadur Shah was not the descendant of Babur. They will call you out for the idiot that you are.*







Disunity is key feature of Pashtuns and Qaim Khan Bangash attacked Rohillas on instigation of Safdar Janh who had eyes on Bangash's territories. Rohillas defeated Bangashs, and Safdar Jang occupied the Farrukhabad of weakened Bangashs. It was sentiment of Pashtun brotherhood that Hafiz Rahmat Khan did not tolerate the destruction of Bangashs at the hands of Awadh and subsequently helped his brethren, not just on this occasion but also on other occasions concerning Marathas.

*Don't try to teach me history. You need to learn it first. Safdar Jung also helped Hafiz Rahmat Khan against the Maratha while at the same time was also trying to get rid of them. Stop making ridiculous claims. They were butchering each other like animals. Not all wars were fought to completely annihilate the enemy. It's called geo politics. Mughals did not not destroy all of existing nobility of hind when they came to Hind. Marathas reinstated mughal emperor in Delhi after they defeated him 

Read who Hemu was. He was the chief minister of Adil Shah Suri and fought Afghan rebels across North India and the Mughal forces of Akbar and Humayun in Agra and Delhi. In fact Afghan Chieftains also sided with Humayun against Sher Shah Suri.*

Typical MQM mindset. The inferiority complex of Ajlafs. Your sorts are claiming to be the heirs of Lodi and Sur emperors while other MQM-walas are calling themselves heir and grandchildren of of Mughal emperors....the fact is majority of Indian Muslims were converts from low castes of Hinduism according to historians.

*Stop spewing out nonsense charsi Afghanistani. No they were not. It was a classicist society and everyone maintained their class identity. To this day in census in India Dalit muslims are counted as Dalit muslims and make up to 20% to 25% of muslim population. Dalit muslim populations are also present in Paksitan but no record is kept. 

The reason they urdu speakers (Which you are equating to MQM) claim to be hiers of Mughals is because they are inheritors of their culture ex. Urdu was the official language of later Mughals (I can numerous other examples and they are not the only inheritors but it has nothing to do with you and your kind). Though it's development accelerated during Delhi sultanate. The culture created by Mughals and delhi dynasty filtered most strongly to muslims of UP and Nawabets of Oudh, Rampur, Deccan etc. and not to you tribals of Roh so off course they relate to them.*

We do not claim to be supernatural or superior beings. Its you and your kind who are have low self esteem and are wannabe Pashtuns. You people link yourselves to us to feel great or superior or some thing like that. Be yourselves and you people will be at ease. As about what Pashtuns could do. The "dirt poor" Pashtuns decimated your Maratha kin at the battle of Panipat.

*HaHa my Maratha Kin. I think you have completely lost your mind smoking chars. You are a wannabe and you try to associate yourself with Pathans of Hind. Read below and enjoy*








Actually Lodi kingdom would not have survived without the help from tribes of Roh. Sharqi army had besieged Delhi, the capital, and Bahlol had only a small army of his own.

*Yes, these mercenaries did make a big impact for Bhalul lodi but that is beyond the point. bhalol lodi was not fighting under them they were fighting under bahlol lodhi and therefore history remembers bhalol lodi not them and therefore in the context in which I said this they did not change history, Bhalul lodi did.

*
Roh was an independent territory, wild wild west, no kings or kingdoms.........Here is snippet from Afsana-i-Shahan




It was only in 18th century that Pashtuns realized that they need to have their own state or kingdom

*Stop posting exaggerated bs from Afsana-i-Shahan which was written in Persian by Muhammad Kabir Bettani of Juanpur whose two previous generations were living in Hind. All these tribes were subjects of different kings (rebellious or not). It is a historically accepted fact. Stop reading bs from barmazid.com and read some proper literature on history.*

And i forget to mention. Pashtuns at Mau did not like the Nawabi and Indian life style of Nawab Muhammad Khan Bangash

View attachment 401991



*Yeah, sure but he was living it. They did not like the idea of one being greater than the other compared to nobility of Turik origion but they thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of civilization. Modeled their architecture on great muslim architecture of hind. They were no longer bound to their tribe but subservient to a bangash even if their weren't bangash. Within a few years the stone throwing was put to an end by his descendant to the throne. Them being adverse to one calming to be superior to others does not mean they were adverse to Ashrafi life style. In two to three generations (at most) they were patrons of Urdu and Persian, the arts and life style of the nobility of Hind. *


I am in awe of Indians




[/QUOTE]

*Pathetic post. You are in awe of the people in the picture, good for you. Go take a dip in your sewer. It will suit you well since your mind is already in the gutter.*


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> I am of a descendant of rulers of Hyderabad deccan. Search on google you will know how big or small they were. I am in no delusion about my history. I know very well who Rohillas were. Now share with me whose direct descendant you are and which kingdom's nobility your great grandfather was part of.


How come rulers of Hyderabad Deccan were servants of Rampur?.



*



You have claimed it again gain ex. telling me Rohillas showed great pashton hood by helping the Bangash Nawabs.

Click to expand...

*Yea Indians like you are puzzled about us.
*



It challenges your claim about rohilla nawabs ancestry.

Click to expand...

*It doesnt . Nawabs of Rampur themselves recognized that they are of non-Pashtun roots. But instead of Jat boy , they assert that Ali Muhammad Khan found a Syed boy. So they claim to be Syeds. It shows their inferiority complex and pathetic mentality of "Ashraf" or what so ever. Its in the culture, a Pashtunized Jat was as enterprising as other Pashtuns.



> Pashtuns of Rohilla are always mentioned as tribes fighting while the ones in hind are mostly mentioned as a certain person of power fighting with his troops. Another point which I have consistently made


Are you aware of the words 'mercenaries' and band of mercenaries"?


*



Again moron there is no such thing as Ashrafi caste.

Click to expand...

 *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_South_Asian_Muslims



*



I have stated this earlier before. It's another example of power consolidation. Even the Mughals settled tribes from Roh in hind. Many ruling families settled people of different ethnic backgrounds to consolidate power. It was not because they were crying out for pashtun nationhood or because of any tribal organization. It is a fact that tribalism took back seat in hind. 

You have no understanding of power politics in medieval India or Afghan migration into Hind.

Click to expand...

*Its contrary to the historical facts



*



Firstly I am a Urdu speaker ( learn the difference between what modern day terminologies of Hindi and Urdu denote), Afghanistani charsi bacha baz, which took over as the ligua franca of the subcontinent from Persian and that is the reason that till this date Muslims all over the subcontinent speak Urdu and it is the national language of Pakistan. The reason I pointed out Persian was because the uncultured people of what is now KPK did not use Persian as language of their daily use either now or back then but Pathans of hind did along with Urdu. That's why Pashto lost significance very quickly. Which is another point differentiating the two.

Click to expand...

*Its Dari (shortened form of Darbari) of Afghanistan which was spoken in courts of Hindustan.

*



The reason they urdu speakers (Which you are equating to MQM) claim to be hiers of Mughals is because they are inheritors of their culture ex. Urdu was the official language of later Mughals (I can numerous other examples and they are not the only inheritors but it has nothing to do with you and your kind). Though it's development accelerated during Delhi sultanate. The culture created by Mughals and delhi dynasty filtered most strongly to muslims of UP and Nawabets of Oudh, Rampur, Deccan etc. and not to you tribals of Roh so off course they relate to them.

Click to expand...

*Now what Ghulam Kadir Rohilla did to household of Shah Alam badshah, was doing of a Pashtun or a Pathan of Hind which had nothing to do with Pashtuns of Roh? i am interested to know your answer.


*



HaHa my Maratha Kin.

Click to expand...

*Yes they are your Indian/Hindi kin....the Pashtuns in Karachi call you "Da Hindustan Mohajir"


*



Yes, these mercenaries did make a big impact for Bhalul lodi but that is beyond the point. bhalol lodi was not fighting under them they were fighting under bahlol lodhi and therefore history remembers bhalol lodi not them and therefore in the context in which I said this they did not change history, Bhalul lodi did.

Click to expand...

*They were no mercenaries. They responded to a call from a fellow Pashtun and helped him in the spirit of Pashtunwali*. *This is from Tarikh-i-Shershahi* ;
*
"Kálú Khán, chief of the Mahmúd-khail, of the family of Sáhú-khail Bahlolí, was wounded in the engagement above mentioned, and Sultán Bahlol sent him a present of money by way of recompense; but he refused it, saying, “I did not come here to sell my wounds.” At the same time, many of the chiefs of name besought the king for leave to depart. The king entreated them to remain, but they said:—“We came on this occasion to succour and assist you, to save the reputation and honour of your women. Dismiss us now we entreat of you, hereafter we will again return to your service.”
*
*


> *Stop posting exaggerated bs from Afsana-i-Shahan which was written in Persian by Muhammad Kabir Bettani of Juanpur whose two previous generations were living in Hind. All these tribes were subjects of different kings (rebellious or not). It is a historically accepted fact. Stop reading bs from barmazid.com and read some proper literature on history.*


Yes Mughals were able to establish rule over few tribes like Khattaks who were paid to safegarud the highway from Attock to Peshawar. But their rule was nominal over rest of the Roh. Thats why there are blanks in Ain-i-Akbari about revenue extracted from districts of Roh. In fact they had to bribe Afridis to keep the Khyber pass open.


*



Yeah, sure but he was living it. They did not like the idea of one being greater than the other compared to nobility of Turik origion but they thoroughly enjoyed the fruits of civilization. Modeled their architecture on great muslim architecture of hind. They were no longer bound to their tribe but subservient to a bangash even if their weren't bangash. Within a few years the stone throwing was put to an end by his descendant to the throne. Them being adverse to one calming to be superior to others does not mean they were adverse to Ashrafi life style. In two to three generations (at most) they were patrons of Urdu and Persian, the arts and life style of the nobility of Hind.

Click to expand...

*A Dalit boy would not dare to throw stone at Nawab of Awadh. Thats Pashtun for you. The snippet i shared with you illustrates the fact Nawab of Farrukhabad was eager to become "Indian" like you, but the egalitarian and democratic nature of Pashtuns was cause of frustration for him. So he founded a new city Farrukhabad which he probably populated only with Indianized people. Another similar episode is when during one of the campaign of Abdali, Khan Jehan (commander in chef of Ahmad Shah Abdali) was ready to set out for foray with his horsemen when he saw Zabita Khan in dholki like Indians. He scolded Zabita Khan for his Indian-ness and and arranged a horse for him.


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> How come rulers of Hyderabad Deccan were servants of Rampur?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea Indians like you are puzzled about us.
> *
> *
> It doesnt . Nawabs of Rampur themselves recognized that they are of non-Pashtun roots. But instead of Jat boy , they assert that Ali Muhammad Khan found a Syed boy. So they claim to be Syeds. It shows their inferiority complex and pathetic mentality of "Ashraf" or what so ever. Its in the culture, a Pashtunized Jat was as enterprising as other Pashtuns.
> 
> 
> Are you aware of the words 'mercenaries' and band of mercenaries"?
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_South_Asian_Muslims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its contrary to the historical facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its Dari (shortened form of Darbari) of Afghanistan which was spoken in courts of Hindustan.
> 
> 
> Now what Ghulam Kadir Rohilla did to household of Shah Alam badshah, was doing of a Pashtun or a Pathan of Hind which had nothing to do with Pashtuns of Roh? i am interested to know your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are your Indian/Hindi kin....the Pashtuns in Karachi call you "Da Hindustan Mohajir"
> 
> 
> 
> They were no mercenaries. They responded to a call from a fellow Pashtun and helped him in the spirit of Pashtunwali*. *This is from Tarikh-i-Shershahi* ;
> *
> "Kálú Khán, chief of the Mahmúd-khail, of the family of Sáhú-khail Bahlolí, was wounded in the engagement above mentioned, and Sultán Bahlol sent him a present of money by way of recompense; but he refused it, saying, “I did not come here to sell my wounds.” At the same time, many of the chiefs of name besought the king for leave to depart. The king entreated them to remain, but they said:—“We came on this occasion to succour and assist you, to save the reputation and honour of your women. Dismiss us now we entreat of you, hereafter we will again return to your service.”
> *
> *
> 
> Yes Mughals were able to establish rule over few tribes like Khattaks who were paid to safegarud the highway from Attock to Peshawar. But their rule was nominal over rest of the Roh. Thats why there are blanks in Ain-i-Akbari about revenue extracted from districts of Roh. In fact they had to bribe Afridis to keep the Khyber pass open.
> 
> 
> 
> A Dalit boy would not dare to throw stone at Nawab of Awadh. Thats Pashtun for you. The snippet i shared with you illustrates the fact Nawab of Farrukhabad was eager to become "Indian" like you, but the egalitarian and democratic nature of Pashtuns was cause of frustration for him. So he founded a new city Farrukhabad which he probably populated only with Indianized people. Another similar episode is when during one of the campaign of Abdali, Khan Jehan (commander in chef of Ahmad Shah Abdali) was ready to set out for foray with his horsemen when he saw Zabita Khan in dholki like Indians. He scolded Zabita Khan for his Indian-ness and and arranged a horse for him.



'Yea Indians like you are puzzled about us'

*Come out of your fantasy land Afghanistani Charsi and don't try to glorify your shit existence*

'It doesnt . Nawabs of Rampur themselves recognized that they are of non-Pashtun roots. But instead of Jat boy , they assert that Ali Muhammad Khan found a Syed boy. So they claim to be Syeds. It shows their inferiority complex and pathetic mentality of "Ashraf" or what so ever. Its in the culture, a Pashtunized Jat was as enterprising as other Pashtuns.'

*I know what they claim charsi. The origin is disputed and I showed you why 'Gulistan-i-Rahmat' can not be taken as a undisputed source and that was the purpose of screenshot. *


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_South_Asian_Muslims
*
There is no such thing as Ashrafi caste moron. *


Its contrary to the historical facts

*It is a fact
*
Its Dari (shortened form of Darbari) of Afghanistan which was spoken in courts of Hindustan.

*Dari of Afghanistan? Afghansitan didn't exist back then. Origin of the word Dari is disputed and what exactly are you trying to say here *
'Now what Ghulam Kadir Rohilla did to household of Shah Alam badshah, was doing of a Pashtun or a Pathan of Hind which had nothing to do with Pashtuns of Roh? i am interested to know your answer.'

*What point are you trying to make by mentioning this maniac and reviled historical figure? You have completely lost your mind to chars.*


*HaHa my Maratha Kin.*

Yes they are your Indian/Hindi kin....the Pashtuns in Karachi call you "Da Hindustan Mohajir"
*
You are a complete idiot aren't you. Mohajirs call themselves mohajir, Afghanistani charsi. Maratha were Indian/Hindi lol*

'They were no mercenaries. They responded to a call from a fellow Pashtun and helped him in the spirit of Pashtunwali. This is from Tarikh-i-Shershahi ;

"Kálú Khán, chief of the Mahmúd-khail, of the family of Sáhú-khail Bahlolí, was wounded in the engagement above mentioned, and Sultán Bahlol sent him a present of money by way of recompense; but he refused it, saying, “I did not come here to sell my wounds.” At the same time, many of the chiefs of name besought the king for leave to depart. The king entreated them to remain, but they said:—“We came on this occasion to succour and assist you, to save the reputation and honour of your women. Dismiss us now we entreat of you, hereafter we will again return to your service.”'

*Good for you. You at last found the name of one of your kind. I have already thoroughly debunked your bs.*


'Yes Mughals were able to establish rule over few tribes like Khattaks who were paid to safegarud the highway from Attock to Peshawar. But their rule was nominal over rest of the Roh. Thats why there are blanks in Ain-i-Akbari about revenue extracted from districts of Roh. In fact they had to bribe Afridis to keep the Khyber pass open.'
*
Lol. Don't try to change history Hindutva follower. Afghans of Roh were ruled by numerous non-Afghan kings. nothing special about your lot*


'A Dalit boy would not dare to throw stone at Nawab of Awadh. Thats Pashtun for you. The snippet i shared with you illustrates the fact Nawab of Farrukhabad was eager to become "Indian" like you, but the egalitarian and democratic nature of Pashtuns was cause of frustration for him. So he founded a new city Farrukhabad which he probably populated only with Indianized people. Another similar episode is when during one of the campaign of Abdali, Khan Jehan (commander in chef of Ahmad Shah Abdali) was ready to set out for foray with his horsemen when he saw Zabita Khan in dholki like Indians. He scolded Zabita Khan for his Indian-ness and and arranged a horse for him.'

*I think you have run out of points and lost your mind. Stop writing stupid senseless rubbish. The reality of you Afghanisani Pathan tribal svages is in front of everyone to see. You are dirt poor, bachabaaz, opium addicted and uneducated. Worst then many Dalits who you hold in so much contempt. 

I think you mean doli not dholki. 'He scolded Zabita Khan for his Indian-ness and and arranged a horse for him'. Care to quote the source. *


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Rajputra said:


> Well, I dont have any beef in your fight but those who are mocking my country should remember that Mauryas and Hindu Shahis ruled their land for 550 years.
> 
> Age of the Nomads is the thing of past today all India have to do is press one button and your whole country will become glasshouse.
> 
> Be civilised, And respect others.
> 
> Regards.



And Muslims ruled over India for over 700 years. We can also turn India into a glasshouse with one push of a button too, mind you.


----------



## Mian Babban

icebreaker2 said:


> 'Yea Indians like you are puzzled about us'
> 
> *Come out of your fantasy land Afghanistani Charsi and don't try to glorify your shit existence*
> 
> 'It doesnt . Nawabs of Rampur themselves recognized that they are of non-Pashtun roots. But instead of Jat boy , they assert that Ali Muhammad Khan found a Syed boy. So they claim to be Syeds. It shows their inferiority complex and pathetic mentality of "Ashraf" or what so ever. Its in the culture, a Pashtunized Jat was as enterprising as other Pashtuns.'
> 
> *I know what they claim charsi. The origin is disputed and I showed you why 'Gulistan-i-Rahmat' can not be taken as a undisputed source and that was the purpose of screenshot. *
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_South_Asian_Muslims
> *
> There is no such thing as Ashrafi caste moron. *
> 
> 
> Its contrary to the historical facts
> 
> *It is a fact
> *
> Its Dari (shortened form of Darbari) of Afghanistan which was spoken in courts of Hindustan.
> 
> *Dari of Afghanistan? Afghansitan didn't exist back then. Origin of the word Dari is disputed and what exactly are you trying to say here *
> 'Now what Ghulam Kadir Rohilla did to household of Shah Alam badshah, was doing of a Pashtun or a Pathan of Hind which had nothing to do with Pashtuns of Roh? i am interested to know your answer.'
> 
> *What point are you trying to make by mentioning this maniac and reviled historical figure? You have completely lost your mind to chars.*
> 
> 
> *HaHa my Maratha Kin.*
> 
> Yes they are your Indian/Hindi kin....the Pashtuns in Karachi call you "Da Hindustan Mohajir"
> *
> You are a complete idiot aren't you. Mohajirs call themselves mohajir, Afghanistani charsi. Maratha were Indian/Hindi lol*
> 
> 'They were no mercenaries. They responded to a call from a fellow Pashtun and helped him in the spirit of Pashtunwali. This is from Tarikh-i-Shershahi ;
> 
> "Kálú Khán, chief of the Mahmúd-khail, of the family of Sáhú-khail Bahlolí, was wounded in the engagement above mentioned, and Sultán Bahlol sent him a present of money by way of recompense; but he refused it, saying, “I did not come here to sell my wounds.” At the same time, many of the chiefs of name besought the king for leave to depart. The king entreated them to remain, but they said:—“We came on this occasion to succour and assist you, to save the reputation and honour of your women. Dismiss us now we entreat of you, hereafter we will again return to your service.”'
> 
> *Good for you. You at last found the name of one of your kind. I have already thoroughly debunked your bs.*
> 
> 
> 'Yes Mughals were able to establish rule over few tribes like Khattaks who were paid to safegarud the highway from Attock to Peshawar. But their rule was nominal over rest of the Roh. Thats why there are blanks in Ain-i-Akbari about revenue extracted from districts of Roh. In fact they had to bribe Afridis to keep the Khyber pass open.'
> *
> Lol. Don't try to change history Hindutva follower. Afghans of Roh were ruled by numerous non-Afghan kings. nothing special about your lot*
> 
> 
> 'A Dalit boy would not dare to throw stone at Nawab of Awadh. Thats Pashtun for you. The snippet i shared with you illustrates the fact Nawab of Farrukhabad was eager to become "Indian" like you, but the egalitarian and democratic nature of Pashtuns was cause of frustration for him. So he founded a new city Farrukhabad which he probably populated only with Indianized people. Another similar episode is when during one of the campaign of Abdali, Khan Jehan (commander in chef of Ahmad Shah Abdali) was ready to set out for foray with his horsemen when he saw Zabita Khan in dholki like Indians. He scolded Zabita Khan for his Indian-ness and and arranged a horse for him.'
> 
> *I think you have run out of points and lost your mind. Stop writing stupid senseless rubbish. The reality of you Afghanisani Pathan tribal svages is in front of everyone to see. You are dirt poor, bachabaaz, opium addicted and uneducated. Worst then many Dalits who you hold in so much contempt.
> 
> I think you mean doli not dholki. 'He scolded Zabita Khan for his Indian-ness and and arranged a horse for him'. Care to quote the source. *


You are full of rage and hate. Why is that?


----------



## icebreaker2

Mian Babban said:


> You are full of rage and hate. Why is that?



You attacked me first buddy and you got the response in same tone. Learn to respect people and their histories if you want respect.

I have also seen your post (can't find it now) that Muslims in south India are not of Arab descent. Historically inaccurate. Read about Indian ocean trade and the present day coastal muslim populations in South India. Visit their websites and see how they live their lives and read about their histories before making ridiculous claims.

Reading tarikh-i-shershahi does not make you a expert on history. Stop quoting bs history from medieval books which are full of exaggerations and read books by historians who are qualified to and have worked verifying and interpreting them. I can quote you some ludicrous passages from Tarikh-i-Shershahi.


----------

