History of the Pathans, Pukhtuns, Pashtuns, Afghans

History of the Pathans
A review by a Great Pukhtun Intellectual Dr. Waqar Ali Shah



	History of the Pathans vol-I The Sarabani Pathans by Haroon Rashid (Islamabad, 2002) Review by Dr. Sayed Wiqar Ali Shah It is really a healthy tradition of writing a book, let me appreciate the efforts of Brig. Haroon Rashid, the author, for writing such a huge book on the Pashtoons, particularly tracing their tribal history and presenting it in a suitable way. The author has taken great pains and did a wonderful job by writing Ten volumes of the history of the Pashtoons, almost covering all the major tribes of the Pashtoons. After going through the first volume, I found it written in a standard English, presented in a lucid way. In this connection I just want to mention some of the military-men and statesmen who during the British rule in India left their memoirs and provided us with a considerable record of the past. They included Sir George Cunningham, Governor N-WFP during 1936-1946; Sir Olaf Caroe, Governor during 1946-1947; Sir Fraser Noble, Private Secretary to the Governor and Commissioner of various districts during the crucial decade before partition and George L. Mallam, the Revenue Commissioner, Mardan. Recently General Gul Hassan and Gen. K. Arif published their memoirs, really providing valuable information on many issues which hitherto were not available to public. In this connection, I would like to request our respected Governor Iftikhar Hussain Shah that following the same healthy tradition, he should also write his memoirs/biography and give us a complete account of the contemporary events, particularly details regarding the events in the wake of the aftermath of September 2001 and that how Pakistan faced this al-Qaida challenge, and if possible, the account of the army operations inside Tirah and Waziristan and its repercussions on Pakistan. " Pashtoons are really very distinct people living on the borders of South Asia and Central Asia. I do agree with the author when he says that they fought the Mughals, the Sikhs, the British and the Russians (p. 1), but would suggest that he should now include another Super Power, the Americans. " On p. 6, the learned author strongly feels the need to publish more on the history and culture of Pashtoons. I will add that institutional efforts should be made in this connection. As a first step, many rare and valuable Pashto manuscripts available in Pashto Academy, Peshawar University, be published and circulated throughout the N-WFP. " To start with, I disagree with the title of the book. The Pashtoons would always prefer to be called as Pashtoons and not Pathan, which is reminding one of the colonial legacy. Moreover, it is a Hindustani rendering of the word Pashtoon so why should I call myself as Pathan, very difficult for me to understand. There are numerous books where the authors are calling these people as Pashtoons like Bahadur Shah Zafar's 'Pashtane da Tarikh Pa Ranha Key'; Qazi Ataullah's 'Da Pakhtano Tarikh' and many others. The word Pathan was used frequently by the colonialists during the British rule in India so being a student of history I am not that happy with the word Pathan. My humble suggestion is that yet it can be changed to Pashtoon in the volumes to come. " on p. 25, I quote 'The term 'Pathan' is generally used for the 'True Pathans', the 'True Afghans', the 'Half Afghans', Tajiks and Hazara'. So for my poor knowledge is concerned these terms does not even existed in common communication and language. I fail to understand that why the learned author is bent upon mixing these terms. Tajik and Hazara are totally a different ethnic stock and has nothing in common with the Pashtoons. " On p. 29 again the author writes: 'The term 'Pathan' is popularly applied to the members of any tribe hailing from Afghanistan and the N-WFP of Pakistan'. What about the Pashtoon living in Balochistan? Here the same thing is repeated as mentioned earlier i,e mixing Tajiks and Hazaras once again with the Afghans. " On p. 29 I quote 'In fact, it is said that every Afghan is a Pakhtun but every Pakhtun or Pathan is not an Afghan'. To me it is quite reverse: every Pashtoon is an Afghan but not every Afghan, in the modern sense of its usage, is Pashtoon because the Afghan nationals included non-Pashtoon ethnic groups like Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbek, Turkmen etc. " On pp. 29-30 again the same thing was repeated. The author is of the opinion that 'The Afghan is a Pathan, merely because he inhabits the Pathan territory and to the great extent mixed with the Pathans and adopted their language'. " On p. 33 the author regarded the Ghilzais as non-Pashtoon. While majority of the Pashtoon historians and philologists agree that the Ghilzais are Pashtoons. " In Chapters 4-7 i.e., pp. 47-67 while discussing various theories regarding the origin of the Pashtoons, the author seems to be inclined to accept the Bani Israelite origin of the Pashtoons. It is bit controversial and till date people are digging out facts regarding the origin of the Pashtoons. A host of the Pashtoon historians agree that the Pashtoons were basically Aryans, and as their place of abode was on the 'Highway of Conquest', with the passage of time, many races left their remnants which can be seen in various parts of the Pashtoon land. " While discussing Amir Abdur Rahman's period, very little space is given to the Durand Agreement. P. 297 " On p. 300 the birth place of Raja Mahendra Pratab is given as Marsa; the exact name of the place is Mursan, Aligarh. The Raja was then at Switzerland and not in Berlin, as mentioned by the author. He was invited by Hardyal, who was too week to accompany the Mission to Afghanistan. " On p. 303 Obaidullah's village is mentioned as Mianwali. This is incorrect: Obaidullah's village was Chianwali, near Pasroor, District Sialkot. " On p. 314 it is written that Bacha i Saqao, on 20th December 1929, despatched troops to Turkistan. This is incorrect because Bacha i Saqao ruled Afghanistan from January to October 1929 and Nadir Khan took over Kabul on 14 October 1929, proclaimed himself the king on the same day and on 1 November 1929 Bacha i Saqao, his brother and ten close associates were executed in Kabul. " On p. 347 this has been written that 'In Afghanistan also, the Afghans showed great enthusiasm and joy over the creation of Pakistan'. I think there is bit exaggeration here because Afghanistan was the only country which opposed Pakistan's membership of the UNO as they had claims over certain areas of Pakistan. " While discussing 'King Zahir Shah and the Pakhtunistan Stunt' in Chapter 34, the author seems to be misinformed at certain places. He mentions that the Afghan Government got a clue from Abdul Ghaffar Khan's 'Movement of Pakhtunistan' and planned the annexing of Pashtoon belt with Afghanistan; I think probably the author means the Khudai Khidmatgar Movement, which was a social reform movement and later on became a socio-political movement. During 1930-1934, the civil disobedience movement was in progress and most of the time Bacha Khan was in prison. He did not mentioned any Pakhtunistan Movement either in his statement or in his writings. Then recently I found some documents in India Office Library, London, giving details of how Nadir Khan, the Afghan monarch, acting on behalf of the British Indian Government tried to curtail the influence of the Khudai Khidmatgars in the tribal, adjacent to Afghanistan. " On p. 348, in the third para, the author is bit unfair and biased against Bacha Khan. He is accusing Bacha Khan of changing 'his track' and joining hands with Gandhi, and, supporting the Congress demand of undivided India. The author is linking it with opening of 'the second and the most dangerous front for Pakistan. It was a clever and calculated move. On the one hand the seeds of discord were sown between the Pak and Afghan Governments, and on the other hand effort was made to divert the attention of Pathans from the armed preparations made by the Sikhs and Dogras for the massacre of defenceless Muslims in Punjab and Kashmir'. Here the learned author is contradicting his earlier statement that since 1930-34 there was a demand on the part of the Afghan Government to give back certain territories to Afghanistan, in case the British decides to leave India. Since March 1931, when the Khudai Khidmatgars decided to merge their organisation with Congress, opposition to the Raj and working for the United India became their creed. Nothing new was added to the former demands of Congress. I am not going to discuss the partition massacre, but let me point out that despite their tall claims of a cross-communal organisation, the Unionists in the Punjab failed to prevent the massacre and thousands innocent people were killed on both sides of the border, but in the N-WFP the Khudai Khidmatgars succeeded in preventing the mass killing of non-Muslims. Relating it with Sikhs and Dogra brutalities, to me, is bit unfair. " On p. 349, second para: the author claims that 'The Red Shirts opposed the referendum with their full might but seeing their defeat written on the wall, decided to boycott it'. The boycott of the referendum had its own reasons: Only a year before the elections were fought giving a clear majority to Congress. In a House of 50, Congress had 31 plus 2 Allies making it 33 against the 17 members of Muslim League. The remaining provincial legislatures were given the right to decide regarding joining of India or Pakistan but this was negated to the N-WFP Assembly. The Khudai Khidmatgars were unhappy over this 'step-motherly' treatment. Moreover, the Government of India Act, 1935, did not say anything regarding a plebiscite. Above all, the tragic part of the whole account is that the INC with whom the Khudai Khidmatgars had a long association left them 'unattended'. By then Jawahar Lal Nehru and Patel, two prominent leaders of the Congress had lost any interest in the N-WFP. They were more interested in the transfer of power to Indian hands. The Congress leaders did not pay any heed to the demand of Khudai Khidmatgars that if the Government is really interested in a referendum in the N-WFP, let it be on the choices between Pakistan and Pakhtunistan, and not on India and Pakistan because the Pashtoons do not intend to join India. But as mentioned, no one was willing to accommodate the Khudai Khidmatgars, their demand fell to a deaf ear so they decided to boycott it. " The author has linked the Afghan support of the Pakhtunistan movement with the internal situation of Afghanistan. Yes this is correct I agree. Let me point out that this chapter is really informative but lacking proper source citation.