افغان،پٹھان اور پختون

[Liberal 000]

One can see that except for few years of maurya and british india was never a one country but rather it was ruled by multiple kings.

You are right .... but the country was culturally always called one country "Bharat" despite many kings

 

[AhmadSaleem264]

You are right .... but the country was culturally always called one country "Bharat" despite many kings

defining culturally one is really hard, culture of sindh is much closer to sistan iran than of tamil nadu and similar is the case of kpk and balochistan, historically central asia, east asia, europe and sub saharan countries and arab world has also been called as a loosely associated one entity just as the case with bharat but they are really different entities.

 

[Liberal 000]

defining culturally one is really hard, culture of sindh is much closer to sistan iran than of tamil nadu and similar is the case of kpk and balochistan, historically central asia, east asia, europe and sub saharan countries and arab world has also been called as a loosely associated one entity just as the case with bharat but they are really different entities.

Culture of Balochistan and KPK changed linguistically in last 1000 years drastically still these two cultures are mid cultures of Indian and Iranian civilizations .

Sindh is culturally and linguistically 95% still similar to the cultures of Gujrat and Rajasthan . There were two broad cultures in Indian subcontinent the culture of North and South in Indian subcontinent but still similar in number of aspects joined by subcontinental history and mythology .

For example , Ram was a Kashtrya King of Ayoudya of Bharat in UP fought war with a Tamil Army to a Braham King Ravan of Lanka and this story was written in Punjab just 30 km from Lahore . Similarly , Shiva considered of South but his Tandav and its results like Hinglaj Mata in Lesbella Balochistan ...culture of Lesbella in Balochistan is still a Sindhi culture instead of Baloch and so many such examples

Do not forget the concept of European Union is still based on ancient Greek and Roman civilizations

 

[bigfoot]

Word Pathan originated in Inida . Indian used this world for all low ranking soldiers and supporters of Mugal empire who were not Indian in their looks . These soldiers consists of all backgrounds like Pashtuns, Tajiks , Qazalbashs, Balochs , Turks , Uzbeks etc for anyone who was non Indian from North and West of India .

Later on Pashtuns started using this term for themselves as they started using word Khan for its popularity in India .

Word Afghan was used by Persian for Khohistani tribes of KPK and East of Kahul as a derogatory term for tribes being Invaded and bashed by Indian kings of Lahore every summer for centuries

All Pashtuns almost 60% Pashtuns are not Afghans like Burkis, Gilzais , Sawatis etc

WORD KHAN IS USED FOR TURKISH TRIBES IN PERSIAN LUGHAT- CHECK ANY LUGHAT.

 

[bigfoot]

Bro you need to read some history books. you mixed everything like ACHAR so please do not make it ACHAR.

I READ HOSTORY IN AFGHANISTAN. AND I AM CORRECT. The WORD aFGHAN WAS COİNED BY Ahmad Shah Durrani İN 1747 WHEN HE ESTABLISHED THE STATE OF AFGHANISTAN. THE WORD AFGHAN WAS NEVER USED IN HISTORY BEFORE AHMED SHAH. ALL AREA COMPRISING PRESENT AFGHANISTAN CONSISTED OF SMALL STATES. NOW ALL PEOPLE LIVING IN AFGHANISTAN IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR RACE CLAIM THEM AFGHANS. PASHTO SPEAKING ARE DOMINANT AND NO RULER OF AFGHANISTAN IS OTHER MAN EXCEPT PASHTOON BY THEIR UNWRITTEN LAW. THIS TREND COULD BE SEEN EVEN UNDER RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN OCCUPATIONS. THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION FOR USTAD RABBANI. THIS IS WHY RASHEED DOSTUM ONCE TRIED TO CREATE HIS OWN REPUBLIC IN NORTH.

 

[Anees Afridi]

I READ HOSTORY IN AFGHANISTAN. AND I AM CORRECT. The WORD aFGHAN WAS COİNED BY Ahmad Shah Durrani İN 1747 WHEN HE ESTABLISHED THE STATE OF AFGHANISTAN. THE WORD AFGHAN WAS NEVER USED IN HISTORY BEFORE AHMED SHAH. ALL AREA COMPRISING PRESENT AFGHANISTAN CONSISTED OF SMALL STATES. NOW ALL PEOPLE LIVING IN AFGHANISTAN IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR RACE CLAIM THEM AFGHANS. PASHTO SPEAKING ARE DOMINANT AND NO RULER OF AFGHANISTAN IS OTHER MAN EXCEPT PASHTOON BY THEIR UNWRITTEN LAW. THIS TREND COULD BE SEEN EVEN UNDER RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN OCCUPATIONS. THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION FOR USTAD RABBANI. THIS IS WHY RASHEED DOSTUM ONCE TRIED TO CREATE HIS OWN REPUBLIC IN NORTH.

Brother it is my humble request that please do not mix everything, this is not the Afghan History, I do not want to discuss the History and I am so sorry to say but your history knowledge is nil.

 

[bigfoot]

Brother it is my humble request that please do not mix everything, this is not the Afghan History, I do not want to discuss the History and I am so sorry to say but your history knowledge is nil.

U speak wıth your understanding and not historical knowledge. therefore, I will not write any more.

 

[Anees Afridi]

U speak wıth your understanding and not historical knowledge. therefore, I will not write any more.

The ethnology Afghan has been used in the past to denote a member of the Pashtuns, and that usage still persists in some places in Afghanistan.
In the 3rd century, the Sassanids mentioned an eastern tribe called Abgân, which is attested in its Arabic form Afġān in the 10th century Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam. Through the nineteenth century, the term "Afghan" was used by various writers as a synonym for "Pashtun", but such usage now is rare in English.
The name Afghanistan (Afghan+ -stan) is a derivation from the ethnonym Afghan, originally in the loose meaning "land of the Pashtuns" and referred to the Pashtun tribal areas south of the Hindu Kush mountains. so it is clear that Afghan mean Pushtoon and Afghanistan mean the land of pushtoon.

Since the Afghan Constitution of 1964, "Afghan" officially refers to every citizen of the state of Afghanistan, regardless which ethnic group the individual belongs to.
Hope you understand.
thanks

 

[bigfoot]

The ethnology Afghan has been used in the past to denote a member of the Pashtuns, and that usage still persists in some places in Afghanistan.
In the 3rd century, the Sassanids mentioned an eastern tribe called Abgân, which is attested in its Arabic form Afġān in the 10th century Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam. Through the nineteenth century, the term "Afghan" was used by various writers as a synonym for "Pashtun", but such usage now is rare in English.
The name Afghanistan (Afghan+ -stan) is a derivation from the ethnonym Afghan, originally in the loose meaning "land of the Pashtuns" and referred to the Pashtun tribal areas south of the Hindu Kush mountains. so it is clear that Afghan mean Pushtoon and Afghanistan mean the land of pushtoon.

Since the Afghan Constitution of 1964, "Afghan" officially refers to every citizen of the state of Afghanistan, regardless which ethnic group the individual belongs to.
Hope you understand.
thanks

you mixed sassanids with pashtun- Afghan is a term used since 1747 and the same is taught in Afghan schools. Afghans and Pashtoons are two different terms. Some people in Pakistan having poor knowledge about Afghanistan call pashtoons as Afghans.

Sassanid was an empire created by persian people.

It had boundaries located in present day Turkey to Pakistan (tribal area of Pakistan and dominantly Baluchistan). As such your reference is invalid.

Please check https://www.ancient.eu/Sasanian_Empire/

Rest of my references given in previous discussion stand valid. I have closed more discussion on the topic. You write whatever you think valid - I have no concern for that.

 

[Anees Afridi]

you mixed sassanids with pashtun- Afghan is a term used since 1747 and the same is taught in Afghan schools. Afghans and Pashtoons are two different terms. Some people in Pakistan having poor knowledge about Afghanistan call pashtoons as Afghans.

Sassanid was an empire created by persian people.

It had boundaries located in present day Turkey to Pakistan (tribal area of Pakistan and dominantly Baluchistan). As such your reference is invalid.

Please check https://www.ancient.eu/Sasanian_Empire/

Rest of my references given in previous discussion stand valid. I have closed more discussion on the topic. You write whatever you think valid - I have no concern for that.

This is unbelievable, I am Pushtoon belonging to Afridi tribe and you telling me that I do not know the history of Pushtoon, ,ok bro you win. thanks.,
why should i check someone unknown authors references? we have our written history, we do not need any one else to tell us what is our history. so plz do not tell me the internet history i have our WRITTEN HISTORY BOOK WITH US.