Talk:Pashtun/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

afghans

Afghan is an ethnicity, Pashtuns are ethnic Afghan. A citizen of Afghanistan is "Afghani" or "Afghanay". Awghan is ethnicity, while Afghanay (Afghani) is any one from Afghanistan. Pashtuns are ethnic Afghans i.e. they are Awghans, Avagans, Asvakans, Abgans. Tajiks are Tajiks, Uzbek are Uzbek, Hazarajat are Hazarajats, Turkmen are Turkmen and Pashtuns (Awghans) are Afghans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.164.19.66 (talk • contribs) 12 Oct 2005.


swati r ruling tribe of swat, dir , malakand and kashmir,,they r pashtun and mixture of differnt tribe,,but as they united as swati so they known as swati... (anon 26 Aug 2005)

Anon, in edit summary: What controversy where? Who declines this fact? No controversy at all!

I "decline" this "fact". The Pashtuns are no more the true Afghans than white people are the "true" Brits, or any other such rubbish. Evercat 20:44 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's some equivocation going on in the article as it now stands. First it's said that "Afghan" can refer to a particular ethnic group rather than inhabitants of a particular country, but then it's claimed that, by this logic, other groups are not true Afghans. This might be logical if "Afghan" is again being understood in the ethnic rather than national sense, but it isn't at all clear (in the article) which sense is intended (in this second claim). Evercat 21:21 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So I've fixed it, I think. Evercat 21:29 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I converted the population estimates for Afghanistan and Pakistan from %'s to absolutes, then added the three together for the estimate. Thus, these unsourced numbers, in addition to being arbitrary, may be wildly inaccurate. I think that we should cut out the descriptions of prominent Pashtuns. We can make a list if it's that important. The only Pashtuns important to this page are those that are important within the group, i.e. had some effect on the group itself. DanKeshet 20:27, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hi!

It is interesting to note that there are a number of externals links from this wikipedia entry to various articles at dangoor.com, and that these external articles are confusing the issue of the twelwe tribes of israel versus the ten lost tribes versus the tribes *not* lost (that would be jews)

I did a google on mr Dangoor and he seems like an honest nice chap? Why then this deceptive lingo?

mvh // Jens M Andreasen +

Frankly, this article is a mess. I've copy edited what was there, but I don't know the topic well enough to work on it. This needs cleanup on all sorts of counts: it has a lot of POV material; the links give high profile to non-mainstream views (Pashtuns as lost tribes of Israel) without the article really discussing the scholarship on this issue. I could go on, but I think almost anyone can see it on a quick read. Please, someone who knows this topic, please give this article some attention. -- Jmabel 01:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

hi friends i am a swati and can u tell me tht do u ppl consider swatis as pathans or not?especially afridis and all..? (anonymous 18 Aug 2005)

"True Afghans"???

Via anonymous edits, we're back to Pashtuns as "the true Afghans" and the descendants of lost tribes of Israel. It the first paragraph of the "History" section we have:

  • "...what are believed to have been Aryan tribes of Central Asia..."
    • Believed by whom? And isn't "Aryan" a rather discredited word, more redolent of 19th century ethnology (not to mention its appropriation by the Nazis) than of current usage?
      • The term "Aryan" is a somewhat discredited word. In Indo-European linguistics, the term is now replaced with "Iranic/Iranian", "Indo-Iranian", or "Indo-Aryan". In its non-racist applications, all the term "Aryan" is meant to reflect, as it should in this context, is that a particular ethno-linguistic group belongs to the West or East Iranian branches of the Indo-European language family, and as such has a number of characteristics in common. In this sense, therefore, Pashtuns, whose language, Pashto, is a West Iranian language like Farsi or Kurdish, are "Aryans", but as noted this is a culturally loaded word in many languages. There is a separate issue of the "Aryan Invasion Theory", as some term it, which while originally meant to explain the presence of Indo-European and Dravidian language families in India simultaneously; this theory as I understand it is not relevant to the issue of Iranian linguistics, and is also heavily loaded with racist connotations. By this token, the Pashtuns are an "Aryan" tribe, but this is vacuous at best. I would replace this passage with language to the effect simply that "Pashtuns are an ethnolinguistic group whose language, Pashto, is a member of the West Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family" --KASchmidt 03:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd be happy with that edit, once the page is unprotected. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • "...and the Bnai Israel which was deported to Khorasan by the Assyrians."
    • "Lost Tribes" and not even attributed as someone's claim.
  • "Ethnic Pashtuns, correctly understood as ethnic Afghans..."
    • "...correctly..." As in those who hold other opinions on this controversial matter are incorrect. Again, if this opinion can be attributed to someone, fine, that may belong in the article, but not in the narrative voice of the article.
  • the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan: ..."known to the Pashtuns as 'Pashtoonistan'."
    • Seems likely enough, but is this considered slang usage, or the Pashtun name, or what?
  • "There are different theories about the origins of the Pashtun."
    • Apparently so. So let's cite and attribute accurately.
  • "It is widely beleived (sic) they are a mixture of ethnic groups and cultures."
    • Again, believed by whom? And what ethnic groups and cultures?

This is not a topic I know much about. Would someone knowledgable in this area please replace these vague and, in some cases, POV claims with some substance? Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel 02:53, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

List of tribes

A recent anonymous edit dropped Jadoon and Kharoti from the list of tribes. I have no idea of the validity of this edit, nor of other similar recent edits, and no one is citing any sources at all. I suspect obscure socio-political agendas. If someone can cite sources on these tribes it would be very welcome. I suspect that in the circumstances specific citation on each tribal name, even the most obvious, would be useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:58, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


Reply list of tribes

Jadoons Mashwanis and Tareens have been added in the Pashtun tribes of the main page but it dosn't mean to take some tribes off of the main page, Swati tribe was already present there (ofcourse due to it's importance as larger Pashtun tribe). We don't have the right to scale them from our likes and dislikes so every tribe has as much importance as mine to me. "Che ta sok na maney ... Ta ba hum sok na mani". We will have to respect each and every Pukhtoon and his tribe, because every tribe has it's great story of breavery. Kharoti would be added soon *smile*

Wasim Afridi Haider

A further comment on this: verifiability of the list of tribes would be made a lot easier, especially for those of us how are not expert in this area, if:
  1. When an editor wants to add a tribe to the list and there is not yet a corresponding Wikipedia article, he/she should give some sort of citation so that we know he/she is not just making this up.
  2. When an editor wants to remove a tribe from the list (which I would think should rarely happen, but it has happened a lot), an explanation should be given on this talk page.

In fact, someone keeps removing citations, which makes it extremely hard for anyone but an expert to know whether the list is legitimate. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:37, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

bizarre external links

Hello. I am new to this. The external links have that "Ogam writing found in Virginia we are all Atlantans it says so in xxxx book" vibe to them. Deleted them all.

Germsteel 09:37, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'm with you on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:14, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Levels of societal organization

Why was the following removed from the article? To the best of my knowledge it is entirely correct and correctly cited.

More precisely, there are several levels of organization: the tabar (tribe) is subdivided into kinship groups each of which is a khel. The khel in turn is divided into smaller groups (pllarina or plarganey), each of which consists of several extended families or kahols. [Wardak, 2003, p. 7] "A large tribe often has dozens of sub-tribes whose members may see themselves as belonging to each, some, or all of the sub-tribes in different social situations (co-operative, competitive, confrontational) and identify with each accordingly." [ibid., p. 10]

The reference, still in the article, is:

* Wardak, Ali "Jirga - A Traditional Mechanism of Conflict Resolution in Afghanistan", online at UNPAN (the United Nations Online Network in Public Administration and Finance, 2003.

-- Jmabel | Talk 19:29, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I put it back.

--Germsteel 05:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kharoti

Kharoti a Pashtun tribe is now glowing on the main page. We Pashtun must respect each and every tribe among us wether it is small or large, but never to humiliate as done by the Brithers in the past and by some of our own Pashtun brothers .. CHA KARE.....AKHPALA.....BIYA GILA SA LA.

Haider


Origins of Swatis

Dear Anon,

Swatis cannot be listed as one of the tribes because they are more than one tribe - they are a mixture of tribes (by YOUR own words) and those tribes are already listed! Swatis are in the same "pot" as the Pashtuns of Chachh also styled "Chachhi Pathans". These are a mixture of Afridis, Yousafzai, Khattak and Ghilzai and Abdalis (Durranis), thus there is no Pashtun tribe as such called "Chachhi". That's going by your argument that Swatis are Pashtuns in the first place.

Second point: In what language does "Swati" mean "Loud Speaker" definitely not in Pashto!!

Third point: History is written "in the eyes of the beholder" i.e. some ones "freedom fighter" is another's "rebel".. If you are reading up about Pashtuns, it is wise to also read books written by non-Pashtuns. Furthermore it is important to go as far back as possible to the original source. Just because something gets published does not mean it is correct. Sometimes it gets misinterpreted. To work that out, you have to read several books written on the subject by different authors, so that you can read between the lines and work out what actually happened. That is why "research" is so rewarding.

In that way you get the whole picture with all its "rawness". I strongly recommend that you read the following books mentioned below, because in these books the origins of the Swatis is described as non-Pashtun and controversial. Apart from the Swatis and Mashwanis (who are actually Syeds), all the other Pashtun Clans mentioned in the list are authentic" i.e. mentioned in several books.

By the way this "Munsif Khan", what are his credentials? Did you get the informations about Mashwanis from his writings , because that is also incorrect (and for the readers benefit, Swatis and Dilazaks both inhabited the present day Swat before the Yousafzai, and both were pushed into Hazara by the Yousafzai as the came into Swat(read the references below).

Below are SIX sources of reference that state Swatis are notlisted among the genuine Pashtun tribes. Please take time to read them:

1. Notes on Afghanistan and part of Baluchistan: geographical, ethnographical, and historical.

Extracted from the writings of Afghán and Tajzík historians, geographers, and genealogists; the histories of the Ghúris, the Turk sovereigns of the Dilhí Kingdom, the mughal sovereigns of the house of Tímúr, and other Muhammadan chronicles; and from personal observations.

By Major H.G.Raverty , Bombay Native Infantry (retired). Published London .1880 Author of a "Grammer" and "Dictionary" of the Pus'hto or Afghan Language; "The Gulshan I-Roh, or Selections, Prose, and Poetical, in the Afghan Language;" "The Poetry of the Afghans, from the Sixteenth Century to the Nineteenth Century;" "The Fables of Aesop Al-Hakim in the Afghan Language;" "Translation of the Tabakát-i-Násirí, from the Persian of Minhá-i-Saráj;" "The Pus'hto Manual," etc etc.

2. The People of India: A series of photographic illustrations of the Races and Tribes of Hindustan. Edited by J.Forbes and Sir John William Kaye, London, Indian Museum 1872.

3. Notes on the Eusofzye tribes of Afghanistan

By The Late Capt. Edward Connolly (published after his death in the First Afghan War, in the Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for the British and Foreign India, China, and Australasia. Vol.XXXV-New Series, May-August, 1841.)

4. The Pathans: 500 B.C.-A.D. 1957 (Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints) by Sir Olaf Caroe.

5. Gazetteer of the Hazara district, 1907; (N.-W.F. province district gazetteers: vol. I.A) by Hubert Digby Watson.

6. Ibbetson, Denzil, Edward Maclagan, and H.A. Rose 1919. A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. Volume I. Lahore: Sperintendant of Government Printing.


Reply origin of Swatis

Dear Anomymous,

You have mentioned some referencef of books in your discussion now let me explain about my authors one of them is Henry Walter Bellew(1834-1892) was a civil surgeon in Peshwar and wrote a first Pashto dictionary and appointed as chief Political Officer in Kabul in the second Afghan War, his theory about Pashtuns were as given below.

Suleman=Rajput Solan=Solanki. Daud=Daudputra among Muslims=Rajput Dadi or Dadika. For example zai and khel suffixes Pakhtun bloodliness. He think zai=persian zadan(to give birth)=sunskrit jan; and khel=sunskrit kul(family). Kuldip means lamp of the faimily. The pakhtun use zai and khel interchangeably.

Now some more Suri pukhtun=syrians by the son of seluekus who ruled that part of Alaxander eastern empire.

Afridis mentioned by Herodotus Aparytai brought to their present abode by Ghaznavi. But they came from Afghan province of Maimama.

Orakzai mentioned by Arriyan(roman historian)Arasakoi and their rivals Bangansh originally came from Ghazni.

Bangash=Bangak=Bangat Chohan Rajputs.

Turis=Tiwaris Rajputs of India.

Utmanzai=Utoi Greek tribe. Utmanzai subsection Baddo=Yaddo of Rajput tribe of Krishna; Ballo is Rajput balla khatri.

Mandal=Jat tribe Mada, version Mandanr, live along Jadoon or Gadun tribes(of Hazara which is sanskrit Abhisara), which names are the varient of the Jadu Rajput tribe. These are Yadavas of India.

Gaduns=Gajni=Ghazni.

Afghan Bhittanis=Bhattis, the elite of the Rajputs serving at the court as Ministers.

Mahmands="the great Mand". From Peshawar=Rajput near Bombay. Pliny calls them Mandriani of Afghanistan; they the wends of Austria. A branch of them called the baizai are located in Kohat which was an old greek city.

So these what we are in front of Western authors like Mr Henry and lot of others. You have mentioned what did your Sir Olif Caroe said about Swatis but you didn't mentioned what did he say about Mashwanis and what he wrote about the origin of whole Pashtuns ??

Now do Mr Anonymous think his ancenstor is just one man whose name was Qais baba ?

I will sugest you to read some Muslim writers also as "Pashtun in the light of History by Syed Bahadur Shah Zafar kaka khel" ... "Pashtun" by Dr Habibullah tazi.

Continue !

Now I would like to write some views about the origin of Swatis as written some great authors. One of them is Twarikh-e-Hafiz Rehmat Khani (pir moazzam shah)is considered a land mark in Yousafzai history is in Persian and Pashto but now you can find it in Urdu version also. Their rivals were Dilazaks and Swatis, he mentioned them as Pashtun tribes. At one place "Twarikh" said, Yousafzais start fighting against Dialzaks, Swatis and Khiljis to capture their lands.

Kindly don't miss to read a book "Tazkara" Pashtuns in their origins and history .... another book from the same author is "The efforts of Yousafzai tribe by Khan Roshan Khan".

Another book by Abdul Ali Ghorghashti is "Pashtunkhwa" in which he discussed about the origin of Pashtuns.

Lot of Mughal writers mentioned them as Afghans, I will refer you to read a book Babar Nama by King Zaheeruddin Babur(First Mughal Emperor) in which he mentioned them as Afghans alongwith Yousafzais.

who were Mitravis(tribe)? When Yousafzais refudge in the Peshawar and Swat valley due to ferocious steps taken by Mirza Alag Baig (Twarikhe-Hafiz Rehmat Khani) and in front of Ahund Darwaiza, the king of Kabul was Mirza Quli Baig both the authors were almost of the same time and ofcourse we would find lot of differences in their books if we go deeper and deeper. Haider

"Ritrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pashtun"

Reply to "202.142.186.2 -Anonymous- Re: Swatis

Thank you or replying!

We now have some dialogue on this issue.

I have read Henry Walter Bellew’s book, and the one which you have got your citations from is called “An Inquiry into the Ethnography of Afghanistan”.

Bellew essentially says that the Pathans spring out from the Rajputs who once were predominant in that region, and goes to quite length in to saying how certain Sanskrit words can be related to the present day Pathan tribes. I am not debating the origins of the Pathans. Some say, the Pathans are the remnants of the Greek armies left by Alexander the Great, others say they are the Lost Tribes of Israel, and Bellew (only) draws them up from the Rajputs that originally were in that region.

(My question is that if the Pathans were originally Rajputs, why are they still not Rajputs? Rajputs as a Tribe does exist in both India, where they are Hindu by religion and in Pakistan where they are Muslim. In fact, Rajputs exist through out Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP), where they speak only Pashto. They are proud of being Rajput. Complexion-wise they are dark. Pathans, on the whole are fair – often being mistaken for being “Turkish/Greek/Italian/Iranian/Syrian, ”. Hence they have quite a large amount of “outside blood” in them, and this ties in with their folklore that they migrated to that region).

What the historians and anthropologists are all in agreement with is that the Swatis are definitely a heterogeneous group and THESE historians/anthropologists don’t include them (i.e. the name “Swati”) in the Pathan genealogies. There is nothing wrong with people knowing this. By your own argument the tribes that make up the Swatis are all listed in the Geneologies (i.e Khiljis/Ghilzai, Bhittanis) –so what’s the problem? As a Pashto proverb goes: “If Gold is pure, why should it fear the fire?”

Regarding Sir Olaf Caroe, and his book - The Pathans – although well written and similar in layout to the book: Across the border or Pathan and Biloch by Edward E. Oliver, (London, 1890) – [anyway has the Pathan geographical locations from that book]. There is some “bias” towards Pathan tribes who were on the sides of the British. You get an idea when you read several books on the topic. He does mention however that the Mashwanis (he spells it as Mishwanis) are Syed from the Father’s side and Pathan from the mother’s side, and does not include them (or the Swatis) in the Pathan genealogies.

- Insaaf.

Reply

Dear Anonymous

Mr Caroe mentioned Mashwanis as Pashtuns and had some discussion about their bravery also, but as you say their proginator was an Arab and married a Pashtun woman so will be considered Arabs, if that then what would you say about the MOST GREATEST TRIBE Khiljis/Ghalji/Ghilzai or Ghalzai, ofcourse you should have better information what does Ghal means in Pashto, do you think the whole Khiljis are illicit generation ? The man who married Bibi Mato was a Turk and bibi mato was a daughter of Shikh batan so why are you considering them as authentic Pashtuns, that way all of them are Turks not Pashtuns or will you consider them as Turkish blood Pashtuns ?

I am sorry to say my friend you do have knowledge but need some new investigation because Almighty Allah gave us ability to explore some new invasions like what really happened. Authors like Syed Bahadur Shah Zafer kaka khel, Dr Habibullah Tazi and Abdul Ali Ghorghashti have discussed the origin of Pashtuns and describe the topic through great logics. What you like is authentic and dislike is gossips, that's illogical. One thing which I will clear here that these discussions are to find the facts not to hurt any one.

When Yousafzais refudge in Swat they have met their Afghan brothors Swatis and Dilazaks to gain their sympathies as Abdul Qayyum Balala has written in his lenghty article in www.swatvalley.com. He believes that Swatis came to that region with Mahmud Ghaznavi when Raja Gira was the ruler, Mahmood commanded the conquest of the fort(where they took refudge at Hudigram) to his general Pir Khushal. In short they have subdue them after a bitter war even Pir khushal was martyred. After conquering Swat, Mahmud settled two tribes of Afghan here one them is Swati and second one Dilazak and later driven away by Yousafzai tribe. It should be mentioned here both Swatis and Dilazaks have welcomed them and ditributed furtile land also, but soon they were soon attracted by the natural properties of the area, Yousafzais learned the art of betrayal from Tajack, so they compelled the originally settled Swati and Dilzak to quit Swat, who crossed Indus and took refudge in Hazara.

In my opinion any Pashtun tribe do not need any sort of Certificate from any local or Western Authors because these are the people who are living from thousand of years in that regoin. As you said Mashwanis are from Arabs (which is ofcourse a bigger honor) then they would called Arabic blood Pashtuns as same as Khiljis are Turkish blood Pashtuns.

As Khan Roshan Khan wrote in his book "Tazkara" Mashwani is a geoghraphical name, he believes that when they were ousted from Syria they refugded in a City name MOSH to the east of Farat, since then they are called Mashwanis.

Now some comments about Swati Pashtuns .... the oldest people of Swat were Hindus, a time come when they were ousted by Pashtuns(Swati,Dilazak) and established their dynasties and after period of time they have been expelled by Yousafzai Pashtuns.(See a book "History of India" page 859).

Khan Roshan Khan have his own views about Swati Pashtuns as they came to Swat with Sultan Shahabuddin Ghori, where they ousted the non muslims and captured the whole region and ruled for more than three hundred years, he also wrote that one of Swati tribe elder moved from Batkhela to Kashmir and established his dynasty there, which exist from 1339 AD to 1561 AD. He also mentioned that Swatis never accepted the sovereignty of Alag Baig and King Babur, they fought against them bravely but lost and later on by Yousafzai ....in Hazara they fought against Turks and captured hills and plains of Pakhlai under the leadership of Syed jalal Baba. He also explained about some sub sections of Swatis like Deeshan or Dodan(same) was a tribe near the frontier of Syria which is belong to Bani Dodan Bin Bani Khazima.

In most of the Moghal authors Swatis are Afghans as in a book "Iqbal Nama Akbari" written by Molvi Zakaullah Dehelvi 5th edition page no 536.

I will strongly recommend to read Muslim Authors also ...... a book like "Tareekhe Khan Jahani Makhzane Afghani" written by Khawaja niamatullah Harvi in the times of Moghul King Jahangir in early 17th century .. in which he mentioned what Mohammad Ghori did to spread Pashtuns all over the India..... third time when he had twelve thousand soldiers of Afghan tribes each of them were the masters in their talent and bravery, defeated Raja Pathora Chohan who was the King of India defeated and further killed, he ordered to setteled those Afghan tribes in Kohistane Roh, Kohe Suleman, Ashnagar or Kashghar, Bajawar and from Kabul to river Neelab(the north of Attock) and from the areas around Qandhar to the boundries of Multan, he appointed Moizuddin Ghori to compelete this task, the first city where they settled was Ashnagar. After compeletion of settlements he considered it as a great victory for the future to creat an Islamic society. Haider

Reply "2" to "202.142.186.2 -Anonymous- Re: Swatis

A case of not seeing "The Wood From The Trees":

You still fail to understand what I am saying, and without realising it have agreed that the "Swatis" are heterogeneous - which is what I was saying.

What ever the real origins of the Pathans, by the 1400s, approximately 600 hundred years ago, a "family tree" emerged that linked the Pathans as being related to each other in some way.

If you take a look at this family tree you find for example a name like "Yusuf" and then a line leading off to another name "Yusufzai", meaning this "Yusuf" is the progenitor of the Yusufzai.

Now, no-where do you get a name, again for example "Yusuf" leading to "Swati", because the "Swati" are heterogeneous - either Pathans/non-Pathans- mixtures of both. Furthermore the tribes that make-up the "Swati" are ALREADY mentioned on the genealogical tree i.e. Khilji/Ghilzai, Bhittanis , and others.

So going back to the List of Pashtun Clans in Wikipedia, it serves no purpose to list "Swati" as a SEPARATE clan when in fact it is a mixture of Pathan clans, that are already mentioned.

Its like listing Khyberees as a "new" clan, when in fact this is made up of "Afridis and Orakzai"- two Pathans clans already mentioned on the list who live in that region.

As long as there is a note on the main Pashtun page referring the interested reader to the discussion board, that's fine by me. The reader can make up their own mind.

Insaaf.

Reply

Infact what I was trying to say something about ORIGINS but here I would give you some information e.g if some small khwar(in pastho)or rivers from different parts of the mountains making their way to Abasin(Indus River), can or would it effect the great Abasin, the answer would be defenitley in no, so in the same way I have already asked you about origins of Mashwanis and Khiljis but failed to get my answer! Swatis came to that region in 11th or 12th century because some authors believes in 11th century(Mahmood Ghaznavi) and some in 12th century with Mohammad Ghori and they well settled their under a rule called TAPA(pashto word in which more than one tribe will defend against their enemies togather brotherly) under which they established their dynasty. Authors have written and mentioned them as a tribe in their books and Articles as I mentioned in my previous discussions. If Kakar is on the tribes list than why Jadoon is there ? Because Jadoons are from Kakar, if Batani is there then why Khiljis are there? same Niazis and Marwat belong to Batan, these are the subtribes so they have the right to glow, so as Swati and Mashwani deserves that! For you more important you can see a tribe Swati in Batan family tree in www.khyber.org. You can view by your ownself, what I have seen in that family tree it was like " Shajara = Qais Abdul Rashid - Sharban baba - Ghorghasht - Baitnika/Baitan/Bait and from Bait or bhittani - Dotani - Koti - Chaki and from Chaki - Berum - Hamdani - SWATI - Bashor - Khaki and Batazi. That's their research and ofcourse Pashtuns and their tribes still need to be explored, some times we will have to go far far back but some times through our own minds with some new research. This is another question that I myself don't believe in that lineage due to some more information to get. I will advise you to go somewhere to Alaska or places like that where you would defintely find pure races of SKIMOS without any mixture and please don't use the word "Pathans" for Pashtuns or Pakhtuns because the word Pathan have never been used by any Pashtun or Pashtun Scholars because Pashtuns have never liked to be called Pathan(if someone know have information)... otherwise I will have to believe, you are one of them agreed, who gave half of dozen names to Pashtuns like Rohela, Sulemani, Khurasani etc ?? it is a word used by Mr Caroe and by Indians for Pashtuns.

Haider

Reply "3" to "202.142.186.2 -Anonymous- Re: Swatis

NOTE: Please do visit www.khyber.org and you will see EXACTLY what I am saying regarding Swati heterogeneity.

Insaaf.

Reply

So here you comes ..... Khyber has mantioned them as one Pashtun tribe....Didn't you see them as a TRIBE in tribes list seperately in Khyber.org.... Didn't you see Swati tribe in Batani family tree ??

Haider

Reply "4" to "202.142.186.2 -Anonymous- Re: Swatis

I'm glad you raised this point. Content on Khyber.org doesn't undergo the same academic rigor as material posted on Wikipedia. Anyone can post anything on the internet. This is the bigggest problem. That's why this critique started on your posting. We don't want Wikipedia to become like other sites. We want authentic - hard earned facts to be posted on this site. YOU told us that "Swati" was a Khilji, and now YOU are saying he is Batani! What you are saying about Swatis I understand -basically that BEFORE the Pathan family trees were created in 15th Centuary, Pashto speaking tribes from Afghanistan came to the Swat region as part of the Armies of the various kings from Afghanistan and these are the "Swatis" that's fine but we don't know for sure who these tribes were - there is only conjecture. Some say Khiljis, Bhittanis and Yousafzai and "others" - hence it's a mixture of clans. Read what "Azmary Afghan" wrote on http://www.khyber.org/pashtotribes/s/swati.shtml - since you like to believe that site.

- Insaaf .

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/s/Talk%7EPashtun_Archive_1_bbea.html"