Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
This is very similar to our system of Jats where one mostly marry within tribe, but marrying in sub tribe is impossible. Like one has to marry with in jats but not in same subtribe/gothra:)
What is Pashtoonawali??
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
It seems that Pashtoonwali is ten commandments for Pathans :D
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
Okay Pashtoonwali means social code and conduct, is pashtoonwali cultural or influenced by religion?
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
Pashtun people are more religious compared to others. Most of the people in Tableeghi jama'at (Preaching groups) are Pathan, who travel to distant areas for preaching.
As far as the Pashtoonwali is concerned, its based the general points like honesty, bravery,etc which is part of almost all the religions. Pashtoonwali also got a code related to revenge (which probably dominate overall Pushtun culture), which is purely cultural rather than influenced by religion, as no religion supports revenge.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
this is similar to us too, my community is also into khandani wars. This is why in history both of us made equally competent communities and mostly against each other and dominated each other occasionally :)
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
this is similar to us too, my community is also into khandani wars. This is why in history both of us made equally competent communities and mostly against each other and dominated each other occasionally :)
I'm sure the reason behind the rivalry between Khattak and Yusufzais would be of petty nature like the khandani wars in between other communities of the area
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
Wellm according to some Scholars the Pathans are decendants of one of the lost ten tribes of Isreal.
As for Kizilbash they are Persian and they are mainly Shia wheras majority of Pashtoons have always been Sunni Muslims although mostly now they are Wahabi.
Actually the Yusufzai and Khattack rivalry is very old in nature and like the other regional conflicts it was most probably started over a fammily matter or some raid for herds.
The Pashtoons also fight amongst the other Ethnic groups like Turkmen and Tajiks as well.
The situation is due to the Pashtoons being the only people who hold the control over the major rivers and water sources whereas the other groups are invaders and the Pashtoons the native inhabitants and the majority.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
Does this rivalry still continue or has been settled? I think Khushhal Khan Khatak was able to unite Pashtoons (including Yusufzais)against Aurangzeb. Pashtoons are the people, who gave toughest time to the British Government.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
Pashtoons will always unite against a national or major threat to all Pashtoons but when that threat is gone they go back to fighting each other… I like that arrangement though.
So long as these minor trible wars are settled between a few men out in the fields and no major damage occurs to the majority of people or the land then what is wrong?
I prefer some of these little wars to the big wars that some countries wage. Total war is evil but small wars like this I see as good excersise 
But few people will understand the mentality or the passion.
I guess something close to this would be team rivalry between football fans or that sort of thing.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
hahaha.
But this persistent condition of war is the reason behind the backwardness of people in the area. Thats why I don't like the idea of war at any cost.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
I would say all war is wrong, but I would clarify one major issue here.
Wars that are tribal in nature are not always as bad as the modern total wars that take place.
Secondly the reason Afghanistan seems so backwards is not just becuase of these inter-wars, its entirely becuase of the West interfering in the region.
Afghanistan was not always backwards but the real tragedy happened when outside influence came to the region.
One myth we need to get out of minds is that the Soviets ruined Afghanistan. The Afghais ruined themselves and it was US weaponry as well as Soviet weaponry that was used to demolish most of Kabul.
Persistant wars are a bad thing yes, but given a chance eventually one leader from the people will rise and that will be the end of the matter.
What the West keeps doing is arming rival groups and prolonging the conflict and upscaling it. That will only prolong the conflict.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
100% agree to your point of view, but the local should learn from past mistakes and should have known that these wars among themselves are of no use.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
That would be true if said locals did not die so quickly thanks to modern weapons. I dont think they have a chance to learn anymore just when the one genration learns its lesson a new one picks up the fight.
It is the reason for such tragedy. Tribal people, I have spent a lot of time with tribal people are very odd.
They will fight amongst themselves often over what we might see as petty things. But then among themselves they will not have much crime, few tribes have issues like greed and most will share whatever they have with you. Some might not wear much but they will always give you the best shelter they have.
No modern society has ever taught me so much about humanity as a few days with some of the poorest people on Earth. There is a strange love the poor people have which makes them richer than those who live in palaces.
Now what we see as petty little wars blocking progress, are they as bad as the wars that have ruined whole nations over lies?
Iraq war was a lie over oil, I have seen savages with more honour and nobility at least they boast openly of thier hatred for the enemy and how they went to steal some ponies or land.
The differences are not just about numbers and scale about damage but in principle too
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
I would say all war is wrong, but I would clarify one major issue here.
Wars that are tribal in nature are not always as bad as the modern total wars that take place.
Secondly the reason Afghanistan seems so backwards is not just becuase of these inter-wars, its entirely becuase of the West interfering in the region.
Afghanistan was not always backwards but the real tragedy happened when outside influence came to the region.
One myth we need to get out of minds is that the Soviets ruined Afghanistan. The Afghais ruined themselves and it was US weaponry as well as Soviet weaponry that was used to demolish most of Kabul.
Persistant wars are a bad thing yes, but given a chance eventually one leader from the people will rise and that will be the end of the matter.
What the West keeps doing is arming rival groups and prolonging the conflict and upscaling it. That will only prolong the conflict.
Bro if you see the history of the region Afghanistan has always been unstable and they in turn have been destabilizing the north west India (most of which constitutes Pakistan now).
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
^ It was not always so though, only in fairly recent terms was the Afghan a nation of bandits in the early mediaval period Afghanistan was much more fertile and Law and order was much more secure. Constant invasions and outside interference turned them into a desperate and hardy race that became so accustomed of war they forgot how to farm.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
Kabul was more or less intact when the Russians left but the civil war after saw the worst destruction. I think Pakistan has had the most negative influence on Afghanistan as it has supported the most regressive elements. Whatever people say about the USA, Russia, Indian influence in Afghanistan at least they have tried to do some development work in Afghanistan. Pakistan on the other had wanted to make sure Afghanistan never advanced and did very little so the nation went forward.
I applaud the West for at least trying to free Afghanistan from the Taliban. They have had such a negative and suffocating impact on Islam in the region not just Afghanistan.
I would say all war is wrong, but I would clarify one major issue here.
Wars that are tribal in nature are not always as bad as the modern total wars that take place.
Secondly the reason Afghanistan seems so backwards is not just becuase of these inter-wars, its entirely becuase of the West interfering in the region.
Afghanistan was not always backwards but the real tragedy happened when outside influence came to the region.
One myth we need to get out of minds is that the Soviets ruined Afghanistan. The Afghais ruined themselves and it was US weaponry as well as Soviet weaponry that was used to demolish most of Kabul.
Persistant wars are a bad thing yes, but given a chance eventually one leader from the people will rise and that will be the end of the matter.
What the West keeps doing is arming rival groups and prolonging the conflict and upscaling it. That will only prolong the conflict.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
Aye but the West is also part of the Problem so all parties should back the hell off including Pakistan and the West.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
It depends what you define as unstable. In that sense most of south asia and the middle east has been unstable too. The history of Afghanistan stretches back 5000 years. A lot of the unstability has been caused by invaders too.
When people talk of historical Afghanistan current day Khyber pakhtunkhwa and signifcant areas of Balochistan are also included.
Bro if you see the history of the region Afghanistan has always been unstable and they in turn have been destabilizing the north west India (most of which constitutes Pakistan now).
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
Islam has 2 recognised branches - Shia and Sunni. Wahabi's are not a 3rd option. ALL researchers agree that Afghans are mostly Sunni and with some Shia too. I have never met an Afghan wahabi.
Wellm according to some Scholars the Pathans are decendants of one of the lost ten tribes of Isreal.
As for Kizilbash they are Persian and they are mainly Shia wheras majority of Pashtoons have always been Sunni Muslims although mostly now they are Wahabi.
Actually the Yusufzai and Khattack rivalry is very old in nature and like the other regional conflicts it was most probably started over a fammily matter or some raid for herds.
The Pashtoons also fight amongst the other Ethnic groups like Turkmen and Tajiks as well.
The situation is due to the Pashtoons being the only people who hold the control over the major rivers and water sources whereas the other groups are invaders and the Pashtoons the native inhabitants and the majority.
Re: Conflict between Khataks and Yusuf Zais
It depends what you define as unstable. In that sense most of south asia and the middle east has been unstable too. The history of Afghanistan stretches back 5000 years. A lot of the unstability has been caused by invaders too.
When people talk of historical Afghanistan current day Khyber pakhtunkhwa and signifcant areas of Balochistan are also included.
In recent times we can see the British period, I posted a news article of 1940's from some British newspaper and they were wanting to attack Afghanistan and that Russia is improving its clout in Afghanistan. In late 1800's the British got beaten there, then we saw Russia and then US after 911. If we go back into history gandhara civilization, hindu Shahi, timurids, moghuls, sakas, huns etc were all central Asian/Turk civilizations and these guys after getting hold of afghan areas rampaged northern India most of which is in Pakistan. In our history in most of the civilizations Punjab, kp and Afghanistan have remained part of the same empires and sindh, balochistan have been part of Persian empires. Anyways somehow the location of Pakistani an afghan areas has been a source of pain for us, and that's for sure we need a peaceful Afghanistan for a peaceful Pakistan.