This is a hypothetical exercise. Do not misconstrue it. It’s a mental exercise fleshing out some controversial ideas, that are very open to criticism.
I am considering the idea that a formal greater Pashtunistan should be considered among geo-political thinkers.
The same with Kurdistan, for while I do not think turkey’s territorial integrity should be compromised, I do think there should be a formal Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan as its own state ruled by the Kurds.
Iām an odd ball of course, I believe the Ertugrul Osman Khan (Sultan Ertugrul II), the last Ottoman scion, should have been given a formal honorary position by the Turkish government. Sadly he has passed on so this position is simply academic.
Of course there is still His Imperial Highness Bayezid Osmanoglu Khan, may the house of Osman continue to bloom. Adding to his distinction, Osman Khan is a US Army vet. I have a feeling he would be good in Turkish politics. In any case, I stray from the point.
In any case, back to the Pashtuns. There has always been a lived reality of a geographic area dominated by the Pashtuns – this was historically known as Pakhtunkhwa and modern Afghanistan and Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province(very recently re-named Khyber Pakhtunkwa) are newer veneer on top of the region.
It is my opinion that Pashtuns and Kurds both should have their own respective States. In the Pashtun case, roughly encompassing the NWFP as well as a substantial portion of Southern Afghanistan. Modern Afghanistan itself is an artificial state, a substantial core of which is Pashtun.
While the Northern areas are heavily Tajik and Uzbek Southern Afghanistan is substantially Pashtun and always has been. In fact the word Afghan has been used as a synonym for Pashtun centuries ago.
I think that the map of the region should reflect this reality.
Swat, Chitral, Gilget, even some (not all but some) of Baluchistan should be part of it since these areas all historically have had a heavy Pashtun component.
This should be done while instituting a Jirga based form of government.
Terrorists and brigands should be executed due to their many vile and cowardly crimes against the people, sowing instability and corruption against the people.
Of course those terrorists working for States are harder to deal with, but that’s for another day.
Exception should be made for those brigands and terrorists who agree to be reconciled and peacefully settle and support the new regime prior to their capture. That is, they demobilize and pledge allegiance to the State of Pashtunistan and turn themselves in voluntarily. They should be reconciled with peacefully and with honor – those who reconcile and atone for their crimes and subject themselves to the authority would be subject to Pashtun justice and retaliation, or forgiveness, by the relatives of the people their crimes affected, as their tribes see fit.
But there should be talk and discourse, it is always better to be talking to a former enemy who is now your friend, sometimes former enemies make the best friends and those who realize this not have no insight into matters of strategy, and they typically have no sense.
Every attempt at integration of all discontent elements into a new society under a responsible Pashtun leadership should be allowed, and by jirga they should collectively determine the form of government the new region of Pashtunistan would take. Expecting a Western style democracy to work in Afghanistan is the height of naive stupidity
If this can be done without oppression or endangering the rights of historic minorities there it should be done.
Will it be done? No. This is a hypothetical exercise.
Look, I think one factor complicating the current wars in the East lies in the fact that the people typically looked at as black hat “bad guys” have very deep roots in the area and far from xenophobia, simply see themselves as offended parties defending the lands of their grandfathers, great grandfathers, and great great grandfathers.
There are multiple groups, and individuals, with competing and multiple agendas, some reconcilable others not, what they want primarily is freedom to practice their own religion and follow their own leaders on their own land without foreigners manipulating them as proxy war fighters, which is what has been going on for 30 years now – multiple foreign governments have been using Afghanistan as a site of proxy warfare. The far too facile way in which our media is accustomed to labeling complex realities should be resisted.
A gretaer Pashtunistan is a far more sensible idea than the “Mughalstan” idea floated around in some quarters. Mughalstan was an imposed entity, however successful it was for centuries, by a Turki dynasty on a mostly Indic populace. Pashtuns however have been in their region from the earliest ages of civilization in the region.
The Pashtuns have been in their region for thousands of years, they are the remnant of the original Indo-Iranian tribes who migrated to the sub continent millennia ago. These are the people Alexander the Great had to fight to get to India, they see themselves as having a deep connection with their land, a land watered both by their blood and the blood of their enemies.
They do not respect the current borders and geopolitical realities and see the wars there not only as matters of life or death but as matters of honor. Honour is something that looses a lot of currency in the modern world today, but among the Pashtuns their honor, their ancestors honor, and their religion’s honor, are literally life or death. Their code of honor, Pukhutnkhwa, is probably more than 3000 years old, their way of life not only pre-dates Islam but predates Western Civilization in its oldest sense.
It is unwise to not consider these facts, I believe that the Pashtuns are a people among whom are elements who will not stop fighting as long as their honor is slighted and the destiny of the lands their great grandfathers tread is under their control.
It is unwise to fail to consider these points.
The Kurds are a similar case, though honestly I have far less tolerance for many of the Kurdish parties, who have made themselves into utter a-ses for decades. But the basic idea of a Kurdistan, if done in a way that does not destroy Turkish territorial integrity, is an idea that should be explored and considered. The Kurds and Pashtuns are nations unto themselves, not just ethic groups. They should have nation states if this is their desire.
Of course the situation is far more complex than this, again this is simply a hypothetical exercise on my part, more of amusing out loud.
_EOF
[…] Kamal S. – “Pashtunistan and Kurdistan” […]
Have you seen those crazy Dalitistan sites that say the Dalits are Indian Africans and that India should be yet further divided into several “stans” – Dalitistan and Mughalstan amongst them. Mughalstan being the primarily Hindu “cow belt”. Except that people would not be allowed to be Hindus and the cows would probably get unmercifully slaughtered?!?!
And there are some African Americans supporting this!
Dalitstan, I cannot comment on. I can understand the motivations but will not comment on.
Mughalstan, however, I will comment on. It’s a bad idea, and cannot even be created without serious conflict. To open the gates of bloodshed when they are closed, all simply for a romantic historical fantasy whose era is extinct is most unwise and will unleash much evil into the region..
The chapter of history that was the Mughals is closed and has been for 200 years. It cannot be re-opened, and those trying to do so are doomed.
I haven’t run into many African Americans supporting the idea of a Dalitstan, in fact I doubt most care either way or even know much about the issues.
Dalits are not Indian Africans, there isn’t much genetic ground for this.
People get confused when they look at phenotypes and color, as far as genetic lineage goes Indian peoples like Tamils, many tribal peoples, and the dalits share much in common with other peoples of Asia, and to some with native Australians.
They are not related to Black Africans, at least not directly within any recent genetic time. I mean, go back 13,000 years ago and we are all somewhat closely related. But that’s cheating š
Black “Negroid” Africans are not even that ancient genetically, the oldest remains I’m aware of that can definitely be identified as “negroid” date from a bit before the time of the earliest bantu expansion, only a bit before 4000-3000 BC. This is almost pushing historic times, contemporary with the early phases of Sumerian civilization
bantu is a linguistic group, and of course languages and genetics do not always converge. Anyone making certain statements about this stuff is probably just playing political games. But where genetic evidence is missing, language and physical culture are important clues.
Black Africans, such as my ancestors, are later inhabitants in Africa and probably evolved as a unique group far later than anyone thinks. There are older waves of people in Africa who are also not directly related to dalits or anyone in India EXCEPT from later intermarriage and mixing on the coasts due to trade with East Africa and Yemen, far later in history.
If anything, it’s not improbable that negroid bantu origin “Africans” may possibly be the children of far older stocks from West Asia – in other words modern Africans could very well be the children, not the brothers or forefathers, but children, of groups from Asia. In other words, the groups that became the Dalits and the various Tamil and Tribal peoples of India are much, much, older I think that African negroids (who are a distinct group in Africa, there are other groups)
The genetics is recent, the genotyping of human regions, and I have no doubt the classification of many Patrilineal Y chromosome haplogroups will change over the years. But there is one thing Iām certain of, it’s not an original hunch on my part, others can treat this far better than I can, but I think the one prevailing orthodoxy will crumble in the future.
The “out of Africa” hypothesis. Also what will crumble is the competing multi region hypothesis. I have no desire to debate it, but both multiregional and out of Africa are based on selective reading of the evidence, and when you take many things as a whole, both linguistic, physical culture and genetics, there are other alternatives that become available.
I don’t buy the “out of Africa” idea of the migration of modern man, and I think in 20 years or so more evidence will emerge suggesting humanity, homo sapiens (as opposed to hominid ape species) emerged out of Asia, and then migrated to Europe and to Africa. I will say no more on this, for one I am not an anthropologist, and two the hypothesis I have in mind is something cultivated by other men, far more knowledgeable than I – who are fairly reticent about their theory, and 3 I don’t want to give hints to something that may be spectacular once enough people start to figure it out.
In essence I think the original homeland of mankind is Asia. Whites, and Blacks both, I believe are fairly recent racial types and far older ones are walking today. The Dalits represent more direct ancestors of some of these older stocks, but there are other peoples…
I think that increasing evidence will be found, suggesting very serious genetic bottlenecks around or shortly before 10,000 BC, a thinning out of the human population, leading to waves of migration. The peopling of the Americas, and much of the rest of the world, I believe occurred after whatever events causing these bottlenecks. The migrations towards the Americas are all very interesting, Native Americans are actually quite Asian, certain lineages in South America are very ancient and have some things in common with some lineages in Asia, other clusters of traits represented in other lineages in North America may be more recent indeed, and again quite Asian in origin.
Anyway, as to Mughalstan – The Mughalstan idea is a bad idea, I know of people who support it and frankly I don’t think it has much weight. I think it’s quite silly actually.
For one, Mughalstan implies that the Mongols still reign there, which has not been the case for centuries. And Mongols, which is what Mughal means in old Turki, were an invading group and not native to India. So it’s a bit insulting to the real natives to name it Mughalstan.
And another factor are the rights of the native population of India, with their immense religious and ethnic diversity. For a small minority to impose a modern day mughalstan on a large group of people who simply are not Mughal would be a dreadful mistake and involve considerable injustice.
If there were to be a mughalstan it should probably be in Pakistan, but even still this is a bad idea. It would lead to much war, I don’t think Kashmir, or Baluchistan, or Waziristan, or the Pukhtunkhwa/NWFP would like the idea very much. It would mean immense communal warfare.
You have a few vocal people with nostalgia for the Mughal sultanate and an inferiority complex and sense of historical defeat from the British.
The reality is that the Mughal civilization is dead, India has been home to many civilizations and cultures, not just one, the Mughals were one phase, they came from the outside, mixed with natives and produced a brilliant and syncretic civilization, but one that died due to its own internal faults and contradictions, and was replaced with another foreign domination – this one far more banal, being the british. The british left as well, and the present civilization in India is once again a native run one, but heir to all of the previous layers of civilization, both native and foreign imposed, with serious tensions and divisions but also possibilities.
There is unbelievable power in this, and both India and Pakistan can leverage the many layers of civilization and culture to which they are heir and produce separately, for they have separate destinies, cultures of brilliance based on their heritage but looking forward to new vistas..
If they choose to, and it is a choice.
Since I am not Desi I have no opinion either way other than stating what I see.
Pakhtunistan is a different matter, a greater Pukhtunkhwa makes far more historical sense in its own region, like away from everyone else. I think the Afghans, the Pukhtuns, have a historical destiny that they must develop themselves. Without the meddling of outside forces. I think the Uzbeks and Tajiks should have their rights protected, but there is a Tajikistan, there is an Uzbekistan, but there is not a Pukhtunistan. And I think there should be.
Mughalstan? Bad idea. Dalitstan? No comment. Pukhtunistan? Already exists in fact and if it is not made to exist de jurre this will result in senseless bloodshed and conflict. It’s a matter of discernment of the patterns of history underneath current events.
If the Pashtuns are not given a Pukhtunistan without foreign meddling they will take one for themselves, and the results of this will continue to grow more and more bloody by each passing year, and much that is good, and noble, and gentle within the Afghan’s culture, already stomped out by 35 years of war and invasion, will simply melt away.
A culture that has known little but war and domination for two generations could produce monsters that we would not believe. And this is a shame, because this culture has much that is noble and valuable about it.
“In essence I think the original homeland of mankind is Asia.”
Many Desis think like this also.
I typed out a really nifty reply but wouldn’t you know it, the blog djinni ate it š
I think there is a large amount of evidence strongly suggesting this possibility. But I might type something more on this at a later date, few things suck more than typing out something detailed and then having it vanish.
Where are you from, Le Kemal?
They are both Iranic.
THENABSTER: Thanks for the comments. I am from the USA.
And yes both are broadly speaking Iranic.