Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 13

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

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

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

THIS IS TAKEN FROM BABURNAMA

speculative theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tapa-i-Shotor, V1, Hadda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South of the Hindu Kush, however, allegiance to Samanid authority was vague and constantly contested by revolt, especially in Seistan where a rapid succession of Yaqub’s descendants ceaselessly jockeyed for position and power which they miraculously maintained, albeit tenuously, as provincial officials until 1163. Elsewhere the country was apportioned approximately thus: Bost, Ar-Rukhaj (i.e., Arachosia or Kandahar) and Ghazni were ruled by Turkic princes; Kabul by the Hindu Shahi dynasty; Tukharistan (from Balkh to Badakhshan) had numerous fortified towns with their own princes; and Khurasan, roughly encompassing Meshed, Merv and Balkh with Herat at its center, was governed for the Samanids by a Turkic slave general.[1]-Mizorr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India in 1860

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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