All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

Interesting article.

All Western invaders aren

Tor Aman and his son Mehr Gul were White Huns. The Latinised versions of their accursed names are Toramana and Mihirakula. They came from Central Asia in the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century CE, fully a century-and-a-half before the advent of Islam. They laid waste the country that we now call Afghanistan, where they raped, plundered and killed wantonly.

Then they entered what is now Pakistan. The great and wonderful cities of Peshawar, Swat, Pushkalavati (Charsadda) and Taxila suffered their inhumanity as few of us can imagine. In the year 516, Tor Aman died and the sceptre passed on to his son. When the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, Sung Yun, visited Punjab five years later, he found the country in the hands of a ‘cruel and vindictive’ king who visited upon the people the ‘most barbarous atrocities’.

Sung Yun does not favour us with the name of this fiend, but we know this can be none other than Mehr Gul. A hundred years later, in the 630s CE, the pious Xuanzang, another Chinese Buddhist teacher, was in our country. He left behind a rather more detailed account of the brutality of Mehr Gul. But it was the Kashmiri Pundit, Kalhana, who gave us full measure of the accursed Hun.

His Rajatrangini — or *Chronicle of Kings *[of Kashmir] — written circa 1160, is a most interesting, at times hyperbolic, account of 400 years of Kashmiri rule over northern Punjab, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and parts of Afghanistan. On the subject of Mehr Gul in Punjab, the pundit tells us that this killer of ‘three crores’ knew no pity either for women or children or the elderly. He killed by fire, by the sword and by drowning in the rivers. So wanton was his brutality that a dark cloud of vultures and crows followed his army in order to feed on the corpses the Huns left behind.

No one stood up to him. Not until a confederacy of Rajput princes led by Yasodharman met him in battle outside Kehror Pucca (Lodhran district). It was early in 528 that the battle took place, where the warriors of the desert met with unfamiliar Hun tactics. But they fought better and routed Mehr Gul and his savages.

Many years ago, I went to Kehror to get a feel of that far off time. In the bazaar, pausing to tell a shopkeeper why I was there, I narrated the story. His first question was if Yasodharman was a Hindu. I said he was indeed one. And Mehr Gul was a Muslim? Since we have so many Mehr and Gul Khans he must, of course, have been a Pakhtun to boot.

This ill-conceived notion is reinforced by the fact that we in the subcontinent believe all western invaders to be Pakhtuns. Mehr Gul, Mahmud Ghaznavi, Temur, Chengez Khan (he’s Khan, isn’t he?) et al are all Pakhtuns in common understanding.

I told him who Mehr Gul was and that he predated Islam by more than a century. The man was incredulous. How could this ‘Muslim name’ have been taken by a kafir, he asked indignantly. Mehr Gul means either Sun Rose or Sunflower and it comes from the Persian which was spoken long before Islam came into existence. I tried very hard to convince him that names do not have religions.

There are Arabic names from pre-Islamic history that were not discarded with the dawn of Islam. These are still in use in the Muslim world. Arabic names were all right, said the ignorant storekeeper. But Mehr Gul was a good Islamic name and a kafir could not be called by it.

In the end, he ran out of arguments to posthumously turn Mehr Gul into a Muslim Pakhtun. But he clearly thought I was a charlatan who had got the better of him because of superior oratory. His pride that this Pakhtun with an ‘Islamic name’ had been discomfited by Hindus was, however, deeply hurt.

As I was leaving, I told him to be proud that an alien savage was defeated by one who may well have been our common ancestor. This one really got the man’s goat. He drew his breath in and hissed that he, an Urdu-speaking mohajir, was a Syed by caste!

That is the favourite fiction of Muslims in the subcontinent.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 31[SUP]st[/SUP], 2011.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

I studied about them in history in my school days. Toramana and Mihirakula were said to be very anti buddhist. Even though they were of Central asian origin and Mihirakula's name reflects persian influences, he claimed to be a devotee of Lord Shiva. Not sure how , may be he adopted local religion after settling down. The part of territories he laid waste to parts of Punjab and Afghanistan were predominantly buddhist before the Islamic invaders spread their religion there.
Toramana's conquests were halted in certain directions when the rajput king of Malwa Prakashdharma defeated. It is believed that King Yashodharman was also the Prakshdharma's son and successor.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

^ Budhism's traces can be seen upto Sialkot. So who do you think Mihirakula was? A Hindu?

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

I dont know. sources claim that he was a self proclaimed devotee of Lord Shiva. His ancestors were possibly Zoroastrian indicating the Persian influence to his name. He was warring with the Hindu kingdom of Kashmir and the Hindu Rajputs pushed his out. He inflicted atrocities against the buddhists majority of punjab-Afghanistan region. He was not against any religion I think since he was not trying to establish a Hindu/Zoroastrian state by exterminating the Buddhists. He probably adapted the majority religion of the people he ruled over to give himself legitimacy. Maybe he was just a psychopath. His atrocities while no way pardonable were not committed in the name of any religion of that time. At one time the hun empire extended all the way till madhya pradesh in central India.

Here is some interesting info of the subjects under discussion:

Ancient Indian History And Civilization - Sailendra Nath Sen - Google Books

In the above source, it says that there is a piece of jain historical literature, claiming that Toramana adopted the Jain religion so it not surprising if his son decided to worship lord Shiva.

9. Toramana and Mihirakula - The Rise and Fall of the Alkhan in India | Digitaler Ausstellungskatalog

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

Thanks, nice read…

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

Even the Moghuls were not pashtuns. The only pashtuns that I can think of is Ahmed Shah Durrani, Sher Shah Suri and Ibrahim Lodhi. Nadir Shah I believe was a Persian or Tajik.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun


That is correct. Mughals were Turkish. And so were most warlords of last millenium. For example, khiji, ghori, tughlaq. This is why Urdu is a Turkish word, and not a Pashtu word.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

Mughals were basically Turkish speaking Mongols, hence the similarity between the two words. If you see the pictures of Moghul Emperors they seem to have distinct Mongoloid features.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

Why would anyone assume all of the "western" invaders into South Asia were Pashtun?

Only the ignorant would assume that. There were invaders coming into the region prior to their existence, and many groups after.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

mihira-kula in sanskrit literally means one from the sun's lineage - a recurring story with the aryan tribes that moved into the iranic plateau and india. central asians at the time of the hunas were not yet decimated and assimilated by the y-chromosome of chengis khan, and were in all likelihood closest to pashtuns of today ethnically. as for were they hindu, central asian hinduism was quite distinct from today's indian hinduism.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

History is not a strength of Pakistanis. They assume all to be Pashtuns maybe as they reside in the western half of Pakistan, and then across the khyber pass the areas bordering Pakistan are also Pashtun. Otherwise all sort of invaders including Pashtuns, Turks, Mongols, Greeks, arabs etc have ruled parts of Pakistan.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

Central Asia for the most part seems to have been part of the Buddhist civilisation.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

True. But I would take out Greeks and Arabs from this list and add Persians here.
Arabs and Greeks ruled for a very short amount of time. Especially Arabs, whose few years rule had zero impact on this region. All the Arabic words we use have been incorporated indirectly through Persian.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

I dont think central Asian Turks were ever like Persians or Pashtuns. They have always looked like how they are today. True that Ganghis khan’s armymen mixed with them. But such mixing cannot alter how millions of people of a vast region look like.

Mythology of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both groups of peoples qualify as Eurasian nomads and have been in close contact throughout history, especially in the context of the medieval Turco-Mongol empire.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Please do not mix Altaic Turks of central asia with Anatolian Turks of Turkey.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun


Khiljis were first pashtun rulers of India. They were precisely pashtunized turks, due to which they were never accepted as proper turks by turkish nobility of India. The ghiljay of Afghanistan are those khiljis.Ghaznavis and Ghorids were turks but they were indigenous to Afghanistan, they got absorbed in pashtun population and today both ghazni and ghor are pashtun areas. Its interesting that pashtun consider them part of their history despite of them being of turkish origin.Pashtuns have also ruled over persia, by hotaki pashtuns. Moreover the first muslim rulers of kashmir were swati pashtuns (not related to yousafzai). Bengal remained under karlanri pashtuns during akabar times. Rohailkhand of U.P had become mini-afghanistan and its inhabitants rohilla pashtuns were major participants of 3rd battle of panipat.Also rulers of numerous states were pashtuns , like tonk, bhopal, jonagadh, farrukhabad, rampur, maler kotla etcSome people say that most of the mughal soldiers and nobles were pashtuns but it is not true. After sher shah suri episode and due to contineous uprisings of indian pashtuns throughout mughal period....mughals never trusted pashtuns, they didnt recruit them soldiers neither they included them in their nobility which comprised of turanis, iranis and rajputs.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun


Mughal is persian word for mongol. Mughals, uzbeks, kazaks and other central asians are either turkified mongols or mongoloid turks...it may seem unbelievable but mongols changed the entire demography of central asia by wide scale massacres....Today there is no such thing as pure turk. Those of turkey have european/greek blood in them. I have read some where that turkmen are least mixed and they do not have mongolian features.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

who were Lodhis defeated by Mughals? I think they were also Pashtuns. Sher Shah was also from Suri tribe of Pashtun

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

It is surprising that the Chinese waited till the 20th century to invade.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

Pashtuns have had a big impact on South Asia. We can observe this from a simple fact that to give respect to someone a title of khan Bahadur was used. The general public considers all the invaders to be Pashtuns, although people of different ethnicities have been ruling these areas.

Re: All Western invaders aren’t Pakhtun

I think he was Pashtun too...