The brave merchants of Wakhan, the 'other' Afghanistan

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Interesting read

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2010/10/07/should-afghanistan-exist/



Historically Wakhan corridor was part of Tajikistan till 1893 when Russia and Britain had a deal to give it region to Afghanistan as part of a buffer between the two empires. on saying that ethnically the Wakhi people are the same as the people found in Chitral and Hunza.

Also Nuristani people are the same as the Kalash people. Plus we all know about Pukhtoons, Balochis and Hazaras. So all the lands that hold majority of these ethnicities should also be merged with Pakistan.

Merging Afghanistan and Pakistan together and redistributing borders of provinces would resolve all these issues.

How British left it should not be the perpetually of the region.

It was designed to cause internal divisions and keep people separated. Simple Divide and Rule.

They had a nefarious purpose to keep modern Pakistan’s people separate from their neighbors.

 

[nahtanbob]

It should getting direct border with central Asia could do wonders for Pakistan
From generic drugs,food,textile,small machinery,automobile, can be exported to central Asian states
While Pakistan can import cheap and clean electricity, cotton, and other stuff from them

if maritime access to 200 countries made no difference to your economic fortunes why would land access to four Central Asian countries make any difference ?

Merging Afghanistan and Pakistan together and redistributing borders of provinces would resolve all these issues.

How British left it should not be the perpetually of the region.

It was designed to cause internal divisions and keep people separated. Simple Divide and Rule.

They had a nefarious purpose to keep modern Pakistan’s people separate from their neighbors.

If not for the British most of NWFP and Baluchistan would be under Afghan or Iranian rule

 

[Imad.Khan]

if maritime access to 200 countries made no difference to your economic fortunes why would land access to four Central Asian countries make any difference ?

Because these Central Asian countries are Energy rich, while Pakistan is energy hungry. Also these countries need access to sea-ports to export their resources and Pakistani ports are the closest ports. Having land access will ease all these issues.

If not for the British most of NWFP and Baluchistan would be under Afghan or Iranian rule

Thanks to the British Balochis are now separated into 3 different countries, and Pukhtoons divided between 2 different countries. Same is the case with Punjabis. And another thing we have the British to thank for are the millions of Kashmiris still suffering under Indian occupation.

 

[nahtanbob]

Because these Central Asian countries are Energy rich, while Pakistan is energy hungry. Also these countries need access to sea-ports to export their resources and Pakistani ports are the closest ports. Having land access will ease all these issues.



Thanks to the British Balochis are now separated into 3 different countries, and Pukhtoons divided between 2 different countries. Same is the case with Punjabis. And another thing we have the British to thank for are the millions of Kashmiris still suffering under Indian occupation.

Which Central Asian country other than Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan is energy rich ?? Pakistan is not the closest alternative for those countries.

Without British rule Balochis and Pukhtoons would be under Afghan or Iranian rule. you would not have the problem of living under different countries

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

Drivers put up with 5,000m high passes and extreme weather to deliver basic goods to Afghanistan's isolated northeast.

LINK
https://players.brightcove.net/6650...tml?videoId=6049927877001&usrPersonaAds=false

It good learning documentary who regularly rant about adding this region into Pakistan. After watching documentary , do you think its worth adding in Pakistan. Your take please.

Yes

Which Central Asian country other than Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan is energy rich ?? Pakistan is not the closest alternative for those countries.

Without British rule Balochis and Pukhtoons would be under Afghan or Iranian rule. you would not have the problem of living under different countries

This is where the ignorance comes out. Why do you keep humiliating yourself?

 

[nahtanbob]

Yes


This is where the ignorance comes out. Why do you keep humiliating yourself?

keep deluding yourself

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

keep deluding yourself

Aww ur so cute. When are u going to show ur flags?

 

[nahtanbob]

Aww ur so cute. When are u going to show ur flags?

what flags ??

 

[Pakhtoon yum]

what flags ??

The one you are scared to show

 

[Imad.Khan]

Which Central Asian country other than Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan is energy rich ?? Pakistan is not the closest alternative for those countries.

Without British rule Balochis and Pukhtoons would be under Afghan or Iranian rule. you would not have the problem of living under different countries

Without British Afghanistan and Iran would have been a totally different countries. I am Pukhtoon, ethnically Pukhtoons, Balochis, Iranian, Afghans are all Iranic people. So no we might not have any problems. But one thing is for sure, because of the British Kashmiris are still suffering.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Without British Afghanistan and Iran would have been a totally different countries. I am Pukhtoon, ethnically Pukhtoons, Balochis, Iranian, Afghans are all Iranic people. So no we might not have any problems. But one thing is for sure, because of the British Kashmiris are still suffering.

Technically, Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, and related groups are also from nomadic Iranic invaders (like Scythians and Hephthalites) although our language is divergent due to different genetic makeup and admixture.

 

[suresh1773]

But one thing is for sure, because of the British Kashmiris are still suffering.

IT is not the British, but the Pakistan Army should be squarely blamed. The Pakistani army refused to vacate and hence a plebiscite could not be held. Infact there was a proposal to exchange Kashmir with Hyderabad(Deccan) and Junagadh which was rejected by Pakistan.
https://www.news18.com/news/opinion...mir-simmering-on-the-back-burner-2046647.html

 

[Imad.Khan]

IT is not the British, but the Pakistan Army should be squarely blamed. The Pakistani army refused to vacate and hence a plebiscite could not be held. Infact there was a proposal to exchange Kashmir with Hyderabad(Deccan) and Junagadh which was rejected by Pakistan.
https://www.news18.com/news/opinion...mir-simmering-on-the-back-burner-2046647.html

Are you trying to justify the atrocities being committed by India by shifting the blame on Pakistan Army?

I can understand Junagarh but as for the Hyderabad story, why would India want to talk to Pakistan about it. Hyderabad never ceded to Pakistan nor did Pakistan ever claim that territory. It wanted to be an independent country, so that doesn't make sense and probably is just another cooked up fictional story.

The funny part is Indian justified its forced annexation of both Hyderabad and Jungardh by claiming that, even though the rulers were Muslims but majority people of these lands are hindus so they should be part of India. But when it comes to Kashmir, India turns face on the same logic. Abit hypocritical isn't it?

 

[suresh1773]

Are you trying to justify the atrocities being committed by India by shifting the blame on Pakistan Army?

I can understand Junagarh but as for the Hyderabad story, why would India want to talk to Pakistan about it. Hyderabad never ceded to Pakistan nor did Pakistan ever claim that territory. It wanted to be an independent country, so that doesn't make sense and probably is just another cooked up fictional story.

The funny part is Indian justified its forced annexation of both Hyderabad and Jungardh by claiming that, even though the rulers were Muslims but majority people of these lands are hindus so they should be part of India. But when it comes to Kashmir, India turns face on the same logic. Abit hypocritical isn't it?

I am not trying to justify the atrocities committed by anybody for that matter. What about the crimes committed by tribal invaders in Kashmir during 1947 in Azad Kashmir,not a single Hindu Sikh family managed to survive in Azad Kashmir. Well I have read there was a provison to exchange Kashmir with Hyderbad and Junagadh which was rejected by Pakistan, this is not any cooked up story. Even Zulfikar Bhutto has said about the exchange proposal to a tribal Jirga at Landikotal. Lastly about Junagadh,the nawab Mohabat Khan escaped to Karachi on a ship with his dogs. Actually, the Indian army had surrounded Junagadh on all sides cutting off communication, postal and vital services. With the economy failing and no help coming from Pakistan, the Nawab was forced to flee to Pakistan

https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1712/17120730.htm
https://thewire.in/government/sarda...-pakistan-former-union-minister-saifuddin-soz

"A quarter century later, on November 27, 1972, the President of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, told a tribal jirga at Landikotal that India's first Home Minister and Minister for the States, Sardar Patel, had, at one stage, offered Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But, he added, Pakistan "unfortunately" did not accept this offer with the result that it not only lost all the three native states but East Pakistan as well.

This is fully corroborated by the memoirs of Chaudhary Mohammed Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan (page 299). Patel asked Liaquat Ali Khan: "Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir and we could reach an agreement." Patel repeated this offer publicly at a meeting in Junagadh on November 11, 1947. "Our reply was that one could agree to (sic.) Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad."

 

[krash]

on saying that ethnically the Wakhi people are the same as the people found in Chitral and Hunza.

No they aren't. The people found in Chitral are predominantly Khow and they speak Khowar. The people in Hunza are predominantly Burusho who speak Burushaski. Both of them are ethnically, linguistically and culturally different from the Wakhi who speak Wakhi. That said, there is a fair number of actual Wakhi Pakistanis who live in spread out communities up North. Northern Pakistan doesn't really have a uniform spread of ethnic groups there. Most of them are spread in many disconnected pockets. For example, you'll find Wakhi living in the districts of Chitral, Ghizar, Ishkoman, the Gojal Valley, and northwards all in disconnected pockets with other ethnic groups in between.

if maritime access to 200 countries made no difference to your economic fortunes why would land access to four Central Asian countries make any difference ?

For that one would need introductory courses in economics, elementary understanding of geopolitics, basic knowledge of the needs of the Central Asian market and a lack of moronic prejudice spawning from inadequacies in one's self.

If not for the British most of NWFP and Baluchistan would be under Afghan or Iranian rule

Heck, if it weren't for the British all of India would be under South Asian Muslim rule.