Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2011 08:43

skimming caroe's book he says pak has more right to be called india in the ancient era because "herodotus, pompey,.....,trajan" knew of the indus valley as india.
thats like saying "the iphone is the only smartphone because a guy who has used only the iphone says so"

the arabs, east africans and ASEAN peoples who had maritime trade with india knew of the true extent of the land. the tibetans who had multiple points of entry into nepal, sikkim, NEFA, ladakh knew of the land as they travelled deeper into the country for buddhist studies. via the ASEAN kingdoms the chinese were aware too because kingdoms like melaka and thailand were the staging and changeover post for india-china trade.

typical greco-roman eurocentric pov.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jun 2011 08:45

Mathai says in his book that JLN et al named India that is Bharat to preclude such a move.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 09 Jun 2011 09:14

Lalmohan wrote:i think its time for a serious hindi movie to be made about the guptas and the huns. gritty realistic CGI enhanced sets and battle scenes. the huns can be a non-communal 'other' enemy that fits the traditional barbarian mould yet avoids any reference to the turushkas. we can have a hero out to restore his family's honour, a heroine who joins him in secret, betrayals, court intrigue and evil evil villians, etc., etc.

Shobha Somnath ki on Zee TV. The video ad on youtube describes them as "Ghaznavi atankis"

peter · Post by **peter** » 09 Jun 2011 12:50

ramana wrote:
tsarkar wrote:Not sure whether its true,

I read long time back (20-22 yrs) that the Pashtuns were descendents of the Huns who had settled there after the Gupta's had driven them out of India. They retained their Hunnic tribal culture, and raiding/looting was seen as a legitimate profession. They joined every invader for the next 1500 years. Also, Islamic influences did not dilute the strong tribal culture. It was written by a British officer serving there last century.

Olaf Caroe's book "The Pathans".

http://www.pashtunforums.com/The-Pathans.pdf

I think last name Gul is a variant of the Hun name Kul. So Mast Gul and hamid Gul are Hunnic descendents. And boy have they descended!

Another POV was presented by Dr. Bellew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Walter_Bellew) who was an English doctor and lived amongst Afghans for decades and wrote many books on Pashto, ethnicity of Afghans etc.

From:http://www.pakhtun.com/index.php/about- ... ns?start=2
Bellew, one of the greatest authorities on Pathans, notes that several characteristics are common to both the Rajputs and Afghans and suggests that Sarban, one of the ancestors of the Afghans, was a corruption of the word Suryabans (solar race) from which many Rajputs claim descent (Bellew: Races of Afghanistan). The great Muslim historian Masudi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masudi)writes that Qandahar was a separate kingdom with a non-Muslim ruler and states that 'it is a country of Rajputs'. It would be pertinent to mention here that at the time of Masudi most of the Afghans were concentrated in Qandahar and adjacent areas and had not expanded to the north. Therefore, it is highly significant that Masudi should call Qandahar a Rajput country.

Also from:http://www.khyber.org/pashtohistory/hindurajputs.shtml

Bellew looks at the zai and khel suffixes indicating Pakhtun bloodlines. He thinks that zai is from Persian zaadan (to give birth) which is the same as Sanskrit jan; and khel is clearly Sanskrit kul (family). The Hindu name Kuldip means lamp of the family. The Pakhtun use zai and khel interchangeably.

Question I have is on the blood feuds or vendetta. I know of some ethnic groups who are known to practice blood vendettas which are settled sometimes decades after the "original" act:
a) Sicilians
b) Afghans
c) Rajputs

Are there more groups who exhibit such a behavior? Could this point to a commonality of origin amongst these groups or is it just a chance occurence between these disparate groups?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Jun 2011 13:34

i had originally read that rajputs were also descendants of Huns, which ties in with the pathan correlation above, but i know others have discredited this theory

it is entirely possible that the huns were absorbed into different cultures as they migrated - into India as Rajputs, into Europe as Magyars (modern Hungary), remnants in Afghanistan, and those in central asia merged into the next band of marauders. atilla et al are often shown as being of caucasian race, which is possible - almost all the caucasians are now displaced by turko-mongolic peoples in central asia

perhaps someone can illuminate further

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Jun 2011 14:32

another peculiarity is while the turks made a nest in delhi via "slave dynasty" the afghan tribes flooding into india looking for land and loot could not overturn this and were sent on by delhi to go find something in bihar and bengal while delhi ruled the doab and lucknow areas. the "suri" afghan tribe was one of these. thats where sher shah suri rose from and the reason of the "afghan nawabs" of bengal. some offshoot of these settled in assam also, POWs were also settled by the ahoms into parts of upper assam and absorbed into society. I have a close friend and one relative both muslims from that region who very 'afghani' type features

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Jun 2011 14:54

there are significant pathan populations scattered all over India, all with varying colourful histories of how they got there!

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 09 Jun 2011 15:36

^^
LM,

Pathans lands are described and they appear as one of the tribes in Mahabharata war. Their presence in the present geography predate the central asian hordes. Or is it the Pathans are the southern most branch of turko-mongol people?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jun 2011 16:06

afghanistan is primarily caucasoid while people of mongolia and eastern steppes are mongoloid. the region in between, the various CAR regions is mixed and turks belong to this category. it's possible that the original turks are related to the various steppe tribes that existed around the caspian sea from ancient times.

armen, I think I read it in goldsworthy's book. I will check.

p.s. upto bactria (bahlik/balkh) is decribed in mahabharat. that's northern afghanistan and into the southern parts of the CAR states just north of afg.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Jun 2011 16:13

SRoy, the region is described by many ancient sources - however whether the people living there are what we know as the modern pashtun or were some other, perhaps more indic people is the question

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 09 Jun 2011 16:17

^^

RM

The Patkhas are mentioned in MB as well as RV. The Balkh/Bahlik probably corresponds to present day Tajiks/Uzbeks.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jun 2011 16:25

yes, I said upto bactria, that means southern afg, where the current pathans reside is automatically included.

LM ji, the caucasoid tribes have been continuously pushed back by mongoloid tribes from the eastern steppes.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 09 Jun 2011 16:28

Lalmohan wrote:SRoy, the region is described by many ancient sources - however whether the people living there are what we know as the modern pashtun or were some other, perhaps more indic people is the question

LM, IMHO it is very unlikely that ancient Patkhas and current Pathans are different people. The names are surely cognates.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 09 Jun 2011 17:23

Mmm... isn't this thread supposed to be focused on the military aspect of Indian history? FWIW, the Huna (White Huns, unrelated to the Yellow Huns who invaded Europe), eventually overran the Guptas and not the other way around. The Gupta successes had been primarily against the Sakas in earlier centuries (whom they managed to wipe out as a military threat). While initial Huna forays were beaten back, the Hunas eventually gathered enough momentum to break the empire. Whats ironic is that, in a clear reversal of Darwin's Theory, the early Guptas were more successful with their traditional infantry-centric East Indian military organization than the later Guptas were with their adaptive cavalry-centric mobile military organization.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 09 Jun 2011 17:49

pargha - interested to know more, sandhu's book talks a lot about the success of gupta mobile cavalry units in beating the huns at their own game

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 09 Jun 2011 22:24

By the 4th C CE the Sakas had established semi-permanent settlements and even cities, which were vulnerable to much more superior Gupta infantry (especially Indian longbowmen) and siege-engineering (catapults, rams, elephants and fire). Once these were systematically razed, the Sakas could be absorbed into the general society. The last few holdouts, who had reverted to their old ways, were pursued all the way out of the sub-continent and destroyed in the famous battle at Oxus River (this is where the Gupta cavalry played an important role, after crossing the Hindu Kush).

With the Hunas it was a completely different story in the 6th C CE. Initial forays were indeed beaten back by the cavalry groups policing the frontiers, but when the full hordes under Toramana and Mihirgula came it was devastating for the Guptas. Finally a Gupta+Malwa coalition seems to have brought them to a halt in the Punjab, but it was already time-up for the empire.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 10 Jun 2011 06:25

The general movement of the foreign tribes in the post-Maurya period was:

1) Bactrians moving into Punjab and forming an Indo-Greek kingdom.
2) Sakas moving southwest, fighting with the Parthians, and eventually becoming semi-independent generals under them with the title of Kshatrap.
3) Kushans moving west into Saka lands, then into Bactria.
4) Saka Kshatraps entering Baluchistan and Sindh, while the Kushans entered Punjab; this pincer movement destroying the Indo-Greeks. In India the Sakas discarded the titles Kshatrap and Mahakshatrap; adopting instead the Indian titles Raja and Maharaja, as a sign of their independence from Parthia.
5) In the fight between the Parthians and Sakas, the latter took the aid of the Kushans who crushed the Parthians and eventually subjugated the Sakas in India, forming the Kushan empire.
6) With the fall of the Kushan empire, of all the Kushan and Saka governors, only one, the Mahakshatraps of Gujarat emerged as an independent power. This suggests that the other foreign governors were overthrown by the Indian warrior clans in different parts of the empire.

The Indian warrior clans existed in a broad band stretching from Himachal Pradesh down to Madhya Pradesh. The greatest of these was the Malav warrior clan, which established the Vikrami Samvat (57 BCE) in memory of their victory over the first Saka raiders at Ujjain. The Malavs protected Ujjain for the next 135 years. The other Indian Warrior Clans were:

Madra (Jammu-Punjab)
Udumbara (Himachal Pradesh)
Kuluta (Himachal Pradesh)
Trigarta (Himachal-Punjab)
Kuninda (Himachal Pradesh)
Yaudheya (Punjab-Haryana-Rajasthan)
Rajanya (Rajasthan)
Uttambhadra (Rajasthan)
Arjunayan (Rajasthan)
Uddehika (Rajasthan)
Malav (Rajasthan-Madhya Pradesh)
Bharasiva (Madhya Pradesh)

The Rajputs and other related communities are descended from these clans, which resisted the Sakas and Kushans. In fact most Rajput clans in Rajasthan and Gujarat have an oral tradition that their ancestors fought against the brutal Saka invaders. When a new set of invaders, in the shape of Muslim Turks, threatened India centuries later, they too were termed "Saka" in memory of the earlier invaders.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 10 Jun 2011 09:19

One more tradition we have to consider is the Suryavamshi, Chandravamshi and Agnivamshi names of the Rajputs families. Many kings consider them as direct decendents of Bhgavan Ram. So to call them as some Huns etc came from stoppes is total reject of these traditions.

By the way just like Aryan invasion there is no oral tradition in Rajputs of a native place outside India. May be some families of Kabul Shahi. But their history is well known. The main idea that the Rajputs are Huns, Shakas, Tajaks etc is also a creation of our communist fellow travelloer " historians".

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2011 09:32

per Airavat's map the Kushan area is todays east turkestan(sinkiang) and Saka as kazakhstan/ajerbaijan/uzbekistan/turkmenistan.

ofcourse the peoples who were then living there may be different from who is there now.

mikehurst · Post by **mikehurst** » 10 Jun 2011 09:57

ParGha wrote: ........but when the full hordes under Toramana and "Mihirgula" came it was devastating for the Guptas.......

Though being illiterate in Telugu and other Indian languages, had the good fortune of being exposed to a small part of it. A great Telugu author by the name of "Viswanath Satyanaraya" who has written a number of historical novels has a different take on "Mihirakula". According to him, "Mihirakula" was an Indian king fighting the Huna, than the other way around. However he was so ruthless in his campaigns against the Huna and those who were not willing to fight them, that he was considered to be a Huna himself.

If any native Telugu speaker on this forum has read this work or heard of this book; they could shed more light on this.

- Mike.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jun 2011 10:16

I read somewhere (wikipedia I guess) that Mihirakula was a proper born Hun, was a later shaivite hinduism adopter and destroyed a lot of buddhist shrines which were in abundance in the areas where he roamed. ofcourse nothing is guaranteed in wiki material. he was said to be exceedingly cruel and pushed elephants over cliffs to enjoy their screams - this is there in the amar chitra katha comic as well.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Jun 2011 13:35

Ramana - How on earth did you manage to find the book? Did you patiently scan it?

A hidden facet of that book is the description of Gurkhas under Ranjit Singh, and their conduct in combat. Also how they formed infantry squares and delivered disciplined musketry that broke tribal charges similar to Wellington's troops at Waterloo.

Lalmohan - Absolutely no connection between Pathans and Rajputs. Reasons are many - primary being absolutely no cultural links between the two.

Secondly, when Ghaznavid Turks united Pathans under the banner of Islam, there was no corresponding conversion in Gujarat/Rajasthan/Punjab/Jammu.

The Kabul Shahi rulers got allied Indian troops from as far as Kannauj, hence the ethnic dissimilarity between two armies is stark.

Lastly, the Pathans were under Greek/Mauryan/Turk/Sikh/British rule but today have no imprint on their culture because their tribal culture is as strong as it was in the days of Alexander.

Socio culturally, they are more tribal than Islamic/Arab. Religion has not changed their tribal practices.

ParGha - I meant Saka, but lazily typed Hunas. The Hunas too were evicted from India by local forces, that later congealed to form the Pratihara empire to the Shahi empire of Kabul.

However, the tribes were as unruly as ever, and the Shahi's depended on Indian reinforcements to maintain some semblence of authority. I doubt Shahi authority ran deep. The reason being their inability to raise local levies vis-a-vis the Ghaznavids.

Similarly Akbar, later Mughal rulers and Ranjit Singh needed Indian Armies to hold the frontier. Hari Singh Nalwa and the Gurkhas defended the Khaiber.

Both could not raise local levies. The British managed to raise local levies but their hold on the frontier was still fragile.

The inability of the Shahi rulers to raise local troops contributed to their downfall.

These areas are history's badlands. Only Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and his Khuda-e-Khidmatgaars had any civilizing influence on that region. When they were imprisoned during the Quit India movement, the Muslim League filled the vacuum.

Had Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and his Khuda-e-Khidmatgaars been in power, the area would have been radically different. He was so respected that when he died, there was ceasefire in the Afghan civil war to allow people pay their respects.

The British are today paying the price of fraternizing with the Muslim League & the Pakistanis.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2011 20:41

Tsarkar, I knew it exists and hence googled for it. I had a djvu version but this one is pdf and more accessible.

BTW, The Taliban still raise the ghost of Shahi rule in Afghanistan to rally their gangs. Indian presence in Kabul is being compared to that in order to delegitimize Karzai.

Also in the book see that org chart of the Eastern and Western Pashtuns?
The Eatern Pashtuns(Ghilzai et al) always looked to Ganga-Jamuna delta for sustenenace and the Western Pashtuns (Durranis et al) looked to Persia for sustenance from time imemorial.

So currently Karzai a Durrani/Western Pashtun is seeking India help which is causing confusion in the Ghilazai/Eastern Pashtun ranks.

So history repeats.

peter · Post by **peter** » 11 Jun 2011 08:26

Lalmohan wrote: it is entirely possible that the huns were absorbed into different cultures as they migrated - into India as Rajputs,

Is it possible to get absorbed into Hindu castes or is it a myth? My impression on reading various sources was that Hindus are strictly endogamous within their caste and the reason they don't admit a "new person" into their fold is because the "jaati" of such a person is unknown.

Rajputs were known to protect their blood lines. A son of non rajput (hindu) women and a rajput king was not considered rajput and hence was never given the throne. This was an example when Banbir "the bsstard" tried to kill Uday Singh and was saved by Panna Dhay (http://www.chittorgarh.com/panna-dhai.asp).

Lalmohan wrote:SRoy, the region is described by many ancient sources - however whether the people living there are what we know as the modern pashtun or were some other, perhaps more indic people is the question

But is it really possible to erase the local habitants completely from hundreds of thousands of square miles? Won't the "original" population remain there and that is the reason for old customs to continue?

peter · Post by **peter** » 11 Jun 2011 08:38

ParGha wrote:the Sakas could be absorbed into the general society.

What evidence do we have for this?

peter · Post by **peter** » 11 Jun 2011 08:48

tsarkar wrote:Lalmohan - Absolutely no connection between Pathans and Rajputs. Reasons are many - primary being absolutely no cultural links between the two.

Modern Aghans are living in the lands occupied by rajput tribes according to Iraqi historian Masudi of last millenium.

tsarkar wrote: Secondly, when Ghaznavid Turks united Pathans under the banner of Islam, there was no corresponding conversion in Gujarat/Rajasthan/Punjab/Jammu.
The Kabul Shahi rulers got allied Indian troops from as far as Kannauj, hence the ethnic dissimilarity between two armies is stark.

Can you please explain this a bit more?

tsarkar wrote:Lastly, the Pathans were under Greek/Mauryan/Turk/Sikh/British rule but today have no imprint on their culture because their tribal culture is as strong as it was in the days of Alexander.

What imprint does the hindu society have of islamic/british rule on them?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2011 09:50

>> Is it possible to get absorbed into Hindu castes or is it a myth?

in assam atleast the Tai ahoms who came from thailand starting 1228AD abandoned their original religion after coming into contact with local hindu settlers from earlier and imported hindu brahmins from places like kannauj and varanasi. these brahmins wrote up a long history and lineage linking the ahom kings (swargadeo - ruler of heaven) all the way back to some hindu gods. so they themselves arranged to get absorbed into hinduism enmasse.

it may be difficult for a outside community to come in and get absorbed directly into a existing hindu community, BUT such is the nature of religion that nobody can stop you from practising any religion desired and evolving your own hierarchy independently. if you are strong enough and engage in trade, the neighbours will accept it and move on. unlike arabia, religious wars have been uncommon among hindu kingdoms...it was always more about territory and prestige not religion.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2011 09:54

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahom_people

Suhungmung was the first Ahom king to adopt a Hindu name: Swarga Narayan.

......

One of the important customs among the Ahoms is that the dead body is not burnt but kept in a box. This is called “Maidam”. It is mentioned in history that Swargadeo Rajeswar Singha who was influenced by Hinduism gave the direction that the dead bodies should be cremated and not buried. He also ordered that the death ceremony should be done in the Brahmanical style by calling in a Brahmin priest and the traditional Deodhai priest

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jun 2011 09:59

the following is a detailed account of how the Ahoms became hinduised gradually over a period of 300 yrs

The Hinduisation of the Tai ahoms (word document)
http://www.donboscoindia.org/english/re ... &secid=234

now the article seems written by a EJ operating in the NE, so the obligatory psyops at the end:

Hinduisation of the Ahoms is a typical case of the cultural conquest of the conqueror by the conquered. The Ahoms had political power and they imposed their suzerainty over the whole of the Brahmaputra valley. The most notable achievement of the Ahoms was the political unification of the country which in the course of the years led to a deep social, linguistic and cultural unity and created a spirit of oneness among the people of Assam. In this sense the Ahom rule brought about a cultural synthesis. But in the process the people whom they unified in turn conquered the Ahoms religiously, linguistically and culturally.
Though the Ahoms wielded political power they could not retain any of the significant aspect of their cultural life for long. In fact they lost them altogether. This is an indication that great danger awaits those tribal cultures that are in close contact with Aryan cultures, for the history of the Ahoms could repeat itself in their case as well. The process of Aryanisation of the Ahoms was slow, subtle, discrete and was carried out through strategic political manoeuvres extending over many centuries. Today many tribes of Northeast India are heavily under the process of Aryanisation and Sanskritisation and the methods employed are not quite unlike those used by the Brahmins in the Ahom court

i,e, always ascribe a conspiracy backed by the yindu than the simplest explanation that over time, a large body of people professing religion X will absorb a small elite of religion Y who have no further contact with the culture and religious milieu where they came from. i.e. its always the fault of the Yindu if the toilet doesnt flush properly.

peter · Post by **peter** » 11 Jun 2011 10:49

Singha wrote:>> Is it possible to get absorbed into Hindu castes or is it a myth?

in assam atleast the Tai ahoms who came from thailand starting 1228AD abandoned their original religion after coming into contact with local hindu settlers

a) It is said Ahoms were buddhists prior to their arrival in India.
b) Lot of South East Asia was colonised by Chola Kings and people followed either a Hindu God or Buddha in these regions. Countries as far east as Indonesia and Vietnam were Hindu states. Even phillipines before the arrival of christians was ruled by a rani. Angkor Wat is a prime example of a great Hindu temple.
c) Modern Thai kings name themselves after Rama. Current king is Rama IX and their original capital was Ayutthaya (after Ayodhya).

All in all it seems to me that people of South East Asia were largely Hindu or Buddhist and "movement" between Buddhist and Hindu and vice versa was considered "normal" (Perhaps because Buddha was born to Hindu parents and Buddha is considered one of the Avatars of God Vishnu?).

Abhibhushan · Post by **Abhibhushan** » 11 Jun 2011 21:13

Peter said

What imprint does the hindu society have of islamic/british rule on them?

Imprints are there but one has to look for it. These signatures are more easily seen in the lands in contact with the invading cultures more intimately like Punjab and Bengal. Examples:

1. Head covering by women specially for religious activities
2. Use of ullulation for festive occassions
3. Use of dargahs for pilgrimage by Hindus
4. Use of Muslim story line in religious kathas in Bengal

Actually social research on this subject might discover many interesting psychological attempts at social engineering over the last 500 years

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 Jun 2011 22:13

What imprint does the hindu society have of islamic/british rule on them?

Then there is that one little theory that Islam it self is an offshoot of Shaiviets. Moon, star, green, black stone .........

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Jun 2011 23:39

islam has a lot in common with early forms of christianity, i.e. whilst it was still an asian religion and the italians hadn't got hold of it
most of the rituals of islam are identical to early forms of christian worship

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 12 Jun 2011 01:26

^ However early Christianity wasn't yet an imperialist religion, whereas Islam was from the start.

Also there was a great deal of diversity in early Christianity that was lost in the Council of Nicea and its adaptation as an imperial religion by the Romans.

Early Islam is more similar to the Paulene strains of Xtianity which only later grew dominant. It is also more heavily influenced by the Old Testament, paradoxically, than the NT is, which was heavily influenced by Greek (and hypothetically Indic) thought.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jun 2011 05:41

NRao wrote:
What imprint does the hindu society have of islamic/british rule on them?
Then there is that one little theory that Islam it self is an offshoot of Shaiviets. Moon, star, green, black stone .........

Can you explain further in off topic thread in GDF?

niran · Post by **niran** » 12 Jun 2011 11:33

peter wrote:
Is it possible to get absorbed into Hindu castes or is it a myth? My impression on reading various sources was that Hindus are strictly endogamous within their caste and the reason they don't admit a "new person" into their fold is because the "jaati" of such a person is unknown.

this Jaati word came into use during British times, earlier it was "KUL" or "KULA" for Maculayites
which means the Family, people were known by their Kul and then their "Varn" which was according to the profession
the said person professed.

peter · Post by **peter** » 12 Jun 2011 11:49

I don't know if everyone knows this but there is a new book out on Shah Jahan (http://tinyurl.com/3vxgdp6)written by Fergus Nicol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_Nicoll) which references Airavat's battle of Samugarh!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Jun 2011 12:37

ramana wrote:
Also in the book see that org chart of the Eastern and Western Pashtuns?
The Eatern Pashtuns(Ghilzai et al) always looked to Ganga-Jamuna delta for sustenenace and the Western Pashtuns (Durranis et al) looked to Persia for sustenance from time imemorial.

So currently Karzai a Durrani/Western Pashtun is seeking India help which is causing confusion in the Ghilazai/Eastern Pashtun ranks.

So history repeats.

Fundamentally in history the economic power of Persia in the west and the economic power of the Indus kingdoms where complementary and equal. After partition this is the first time that the economic power of India proper is the largest and even bigger than Persia in the 21st century. All the small tribes and clans will gravitate towards Indian economy and this dynamics will be something never seen before in history.

For 40 years India was not in the picture and Indian economic influence was reduced to zero in the pashtun belt.
Now eastern Pastun will join the western pashtun region and create greater province and may not want to be with Pakistan.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Jun 2011 13:12

my read is that 'Afghanistan' was always the buffer state between Persia, Bharat and TransOxania
and perhaps as an entity either oscillates between these empires/cultures or ceases to be a buffer

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 12 Jun 2011 13:20

Lalmohan wrote:my read is that 'Afghanistan' was always the buffer state between Persia, Bharat and TransOxania
and perhaps as an entity either oscillates between these empires/cultures or ceases to be a buffer

True.. Baluchistan-northern afghanistan-pamir knot-tibet.. this is the buffer zone around India. By southern AFG, i mean kapisa region which was quite under Indian influence due to khyber and closeness to Purushpura/Pushkalavati. The qandahar region does not show similarly strong Indian connection as kapisa.