CPEC has ZERO economic viability, its a massive cost. Is the purpose something else?

[mishra]

23 minutes ago, Finer said:

CPEC is already started, running as we speak. Hence the proposals in the last few days. In fact, there was recorded videos on the day CPEC started which can be found on Pakistan defense forum.

 

Pakistan actually turned CPEC into the reality now whereas chabar port still remains mystical as Santa.

 

Tbh , CPEC is best deal Pakistan can have in present environment as no one else isnready to fund Pakistan. But i can assure you, by end of next decade, A small country like Bangladesh would have squeezed more out of China withount giving anything away. 

Now , you decide. Who has smarter deal, Bangladeshi diolomats or Pakistani one

[panther]

34 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because they are muslims too. 

They are proud persians because they don't celebrate the names who conquered them, enslaved them. That is something Afghans & Pakistanis do. That is the difference. 

Ali, Hussein, Hassan didnt conquer Persia. So their names are fine. Khalid, Waleed, Abu Bakr - they invaded Persia and Persians don't have such names, especially for their own kings.

Afghans were conquered & enslaved by Genghis Khan & Hulegu Khan. Result : All Pashtuns take the name of their enslavers. 

Pakistan was genocided & enslaved by Ghaznawi, Ghauri, etc. Result : Pakistan names their important objects after the very same men who raped & destroyed their ancestors.

 

This is why Persians have pride in their civilization & Afghans/Pakistanis don't.

 

Lol another lie Everyone in my family has an arabic name followed by our tribe,  also the turks and mughals gave the khan title to many pashtuns in their armies. 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, panther said:

Lol another lie Everyone in my family has an arabic name followed by our tribe,  also the turks and mughals gave the khan title to many pashtuns in their armies. 

 

 

 

 

The turks and mongols were extremely protective of the title Khan, because Khans were entitled to run for Khagan (emperor) at Koroltai (tribal meeting). They went to war with their own tribesmen (turkic) for using the name Khan, they will just give it to their Pashtun slaves eh ?

 

You people have Arabic name, followed by tribal name, followed by Khan because you people glorify the ones who raped your ancestors and killed your men. 

That is why there is no Afghan 'khan' till you guys were ENSLAVED by the Mongols.

Oh and there were no Afghans in Mongol armies. Only in the armies of their descendants long after Mongol Empire collapsed, that too only Babur and the Mughal branch. 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The turks and mongols were extremely protective of the title Khan, because Khans were entitled to run for Khagan (emperor) at Koroltai (tribal meeting). They went to war with their own tribesmen (turkic) for using the name Khan, they will just give it to their Pashtun slaves eh ?

 

You people have Arabic name, followed by tribal name, followed by Khan because you people glorify the ones who raped your ancestors and killed your men. 

That is why there is no Afghan 'khan' till you guys were ENSLAVED by the Mongols.

Oh and there were no Afghans in Mongol armies. Only in the armies of their descendants long after Mongol Empire collapsed, that too only Babur and the Mughal branch. 

 

Babur and the Mughals werent Afghans. Babur was a Barlas.He was a descendent of Taimur from his Father's side and a descendent of Genghis Khan from his mothers side.

[panther]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The turks and mongols were extremely protective of the title Khan, because Khans were entitled to run for Khagan (emperor) at Koroltai (tribal meeting). They went to war with their own tribesmen (turkic) for using the name Khan, they will just give it to their Pashtun slaves eh ?

 

You people have Arabic name, followed by tribal name, followed by Khan because you people glorify the ones who raped your ancestors and killed your men. 

That is why there is no Afghan 'khan' till you guys were ENSLAVED by the Mongols.

Oh and there were no Afghans in Mongol armies. Only in the armies of their descendants long after Mongol Empire collapsed, that too only Babur and the Mughal branch. 

That's false again there are many pashtuns with khan surname but there are just as many who don't have khan surname. Did i say there were Afghans in mongal army, I clearly mentioned Turks and mughals. 

 

1- Some people assume that when Mongols devastated Afghanistan in 13th century ¸ Pashtuns must have borrowed from them at that occasion. Why would Mongol conquerors bestow their royal title to them?. Also People should keep in mind that Mongols devastated central and northern Afghanistan which was populated by Persians/Tajiks, much of the present day Afghanistan was not inhabited by Pashtuns/Afghans at that time. Pashtuns at that time were confined to Koh Sulieman range and Koh Sufaid range of Hindu Kush as evident from statements of Alberuni of 11th century and Ibn-e-batuta of 14th century. These mountain ranges were natural barriers/forts , and protected Pashtun tribes from Mongols who were unstoppable on plains. Mongol themselves avoided sending armies in to these mountains. Pashtuns didn’t integrate into Mongol empire and were hostile to them. When Jalaludin Khwarzimi came to Ghazni to assemble a Turkish force , he also invited Afghan/Pashtun tribes from the hills to join his forces , which swelled his army to 60,000. This Turk-Afghan force was the first to inflict first ever defeat on Mongols in 1221 AD at Parwan. After victory, Afghan tribesmen quarreled with Turkish soldiers over spoils of war and deserted Jalaludin. But they kept raiding Mongol garrisons in subsequent years. 2- Due to ferocity and reputation of the Pashtun tribes on Mongol empire’s frontier with India, Turk sultans began to employ them in large numbers and all the forts along Mongol frontier were garrisoned with Afghans as a defense strategy. Earlier Iltumish had used Afghans to counteract rebellious Turkish nobility. The Afghan/Pashtun soldiers of Slave dynasty and Khilji dynasty , on the front lines played an important role in repulsing Mongol invasions of India. Most of the soldiers of Turkish slave dynasty consisted of Khiljis and Afghans. With the ascendancy of Turko-Afghan Khiljis to throne, Pashtuns began to find place in the nobility. For example Malik Inkhtiya-uddin Yal Afghan was a notable Pashtun noble of Khilji empire. Tughlaq also patronized Pashtuns and large number of Pashtuns, along with Mongols, were appointed “sadah” amirs i.e chief of hundred villages. At the time of invasion of Amir timur , the Tuglaq empire was practically controlled by two Afghan brothers Malik Iqbal Khan and Sarang Khan, sons of Zafar Khan Lodhi. After death of last Tughlaq ruler Nasir-ud-din, the nobility of the Tughlaqs appointed Daulat Khan Lodhi , the sipah-e-salar of army, as new Sultan in 1412 who sat on throne for two years and then was defeated and killed by Khizr Khan who founded Sayyid dynasty. 3- Lodis were involved in Indian affairs from very early on . Malik Mahmud Lodi is said to have accompanied Mahmud Ghaznavi in the campaign of Somnat. We hear of Malik Shahu Lodi, the deputy governor of Multan, in the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq , who gathered his Afghans followers and killed governor of Multan. Malik Bahram Lodi, grandfather of Bahlul Lodi, was serving governor of Multan with a contingent of his tribesmen in the reign of Feroz Shah Tughlaq. The Lodhis who seized Delhi throne in 1451 were not strange and new comers to India, they were active in India since times of Slave dynasty. They received Khan titles from their Turkish predecessors and continued to use it when they themselves became Sultans. The real Khan i.e Mughal Emperor Babur had to say that no one deserves Khan title batter than Afghan (it is said that six thousands soldiers in his army during panipat campaign were Afghans , notably of Zamand and Kheshgi tribes). Afghans remained important part of Mughal nobility and soldiery but Khan title was not exclusive to them, it was a Mughal title. With the decline of Mughal empire in 18th century, Pashtuns/Afghans settled in U.P, Malwa and Gujrat and seized territories there. Due to dominance of Pashtuns/Afghans in 18th century Northern India, the prominent Khans roaming around were mostly Pashtuns and that’s why some how Khan became synonymous to Pathan among Indians.  4-Ghakkars, Janjuas, Awans, Balochs, muslim Rajputs etc have not borrowed Khan title from Pashtuns……..It was either bestowed on them by either old Turki dynasties of Delhi or by Mughals. Khizr Khan was a Sayyid but he was using Khan title. Khusrao Khan was a convert from Hinduism but he was given Khan name by Khiljis.  5- I doubt that Turk Sultans of Delhi would copy Khan title from Mongols. The younger brother of Balban was named ‘Kishlu Khan’. The most celebrated general of Khilji who destroyed Mongol armies, was zafar Khan.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

Babur and the Mughals werent Afghans. Babur was a Barlas.He was a descendent of Taimur from his Father's side and a descendent of Genghis Khan from his mothers side.

yep. but he wasnt a true mongol or inheritor of the mongol empire. 

pashtuns were slaves under the mongols, from Genghis Khan all the way to Qazan Khan of the Chagatai Khanate & Togha Timur of the Il-Khans.

it wasnt until Tamerlane rose to power, as a Turkic nobleman who was lame (hence the name) that the Pashtuns were freed from mongol slavery.

And instead of hating them, the Pashtuns took their name. Because Pashtuns in general have no pride in their history or culture.

 

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, panther said:

That's false again there are many pashtuns with khan surname but there are just as many who don't have khan surname. Did i say there were Afghans in mongal army, I clearly mentioned Turks and mughals.

Your post is completely false.

Mongols did not have a defensive frontier with Delhi sultan. 
Mongols attacked Delhi Sultan Ala-ud-din Khilji and lost multiple times in 1298, 1305, 1306. Infact their loss in 1305 was in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.

So no, Mongols did not 'make defensive forts along the frontier and fill them with Pashtuns'. They enslaved the Pashtuns. Of this, we have written evidence.

 

Also, the Khilji Dynasty was *NOT* a Pashtun dynasty, as Khiljis are Turks, not Pashtuns. Same with Ghaznavi empire - they were Turks (Mahmoud's father's name was Sebuktagin. A turkic name. Not Pashtun name). 

There was no Pashtun dynasty till the rise of the Lodi dynasty. The Delhi sultans did use Afghans as mercenaries and slaves (early on, the Mameluk sultans of Delhi had Afghan slaves. Iltutmish, a Turk's, favourite slave was a young Afghan boy.) 

 

As far as Jalal-ud-din Mingburnu is concerned, he won 1 battle vs the Mongols and lost several others. All with the 'help' of the Afghans. 

Afghans were nothing more than dust under the feet of the Mongols, who came, conquered, crushed them and started living in their lands- thats where the Hazaras come from. The Mongols did conquer Suleiman & Safed Koh regions, they didnt go back because that part of the empire kept paying them tribute in gold, virgin girls & young boys for the army, as we see from the records of the Il-Khans.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Muloghonto

[panther]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Your post is completely false.

Mongols did not have a defensive frontier with Delhi sultan. 
Mongols attacked Delhi Sultan Ala-ud-din Khilji and lost multiple times in 1298, 1305, 1306. Infact their loss in 1305 was in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.

So no, Mongols did not 'make defensive forts along the frontier and fill them with Pashtuns'. They enslaved the Pashtuns. Of this, we have written evidence.

 

Also, the Khilji Dynasty was *NOT* a Pashtun dynasty, as Khiljis are Turks, not Pashtuns. Same with Ghaznavi empire - they were Turks (Mahmoud's father's name was Sebuktagin. A turkic name. Not Pashtun name). 

There was no Pashtun dynasty till the rise of the Lodi dynasty. The Delhi sultans did use Afghans as mercenaries and slaves (early on, the Mameluk sultans of Delhi had Afghan slaves. Iltutmish, a Turk's, favourite slave was a young Afghan boy.) 

 

As far as Jalal-ud-din Mingburnu is concerned, he won 1 battle vs the Mongols and lost several others. All with the 'help' of the Afghans. 

Afghans were nothing more than dust under the feet of the Mongols, who came, conquered, crushed them and started living in their lands- thats where the Hazaras come from. The Mongols did conquer Suleiman & Safed Koh regions, they didnt go back because that part of the empire kept paying them tribute in gold, virgin girls & young boys for the army, as we see from the records of the Il-Khans.

 

lol you said khan was a mongal name than why was zafar khan a khilji turk have the khan surname, and their were many pashtuns in the khilji army, it is obvious turks were the first ones to bestow the khan title on pashtun soldiers in their armies. 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, panther said:

lol you said khan was a mongal name than why was zafar khan a khilji turk have the khan surname, and their were many pashtuns in the khilji army, it is obvious turks were the first ones to bestow the khan title on pashtun soldiers in their armies. 

1. Zafar Khan wasnt a Khilji Turk, he was a pashtun, originally named Malik Hizbaruddin Yusuf. 

2. The entire name 'Zafar Khan' was given as a title. It went to a hindu elephant stable-master (Malik Dinar) after Hizbaruddin died. But by 1300 AD, we've already had 70 years of Mongol enslavement of the Pashtuns and the title 'Khan' had begun to appear amongst the enslaved Pathans. 

 

As i said, you won't find an 'Afghan khan' before the enslavement of the Afghans by the mongols.

 

[Muloghonto]

Also, Khan is not a mongol name. It is a mongol TITLE. Khan means 'leader'. Ie, leader of a horde/tribe. 
Khagan means 'Khan of Khans', similar title as Shahenshah, which was what the title of Genghis Khan & emperors of the mongol empire was - Khagan, not Khan. 

[panther]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Zafar Khan wasnt a Khilji Turk, he was a pashtun, originally named Malik Hizbaruddin Yusuf. 

2. The entire name 'Zafar Khan' was given as a title. It went to a hindu elephant stable-master (Malik Dinar) after Hizbaruddin died. But by 1300 AD, we've already had 70 years of Mongol enslavement of the Pashtuns and the title 'Khan' had begun to appear amongst the enslaved Pathans. 

 

As i said, you won't find an 'Afghan khan' before the enslavement of the Afghans by the mongols.

 

Cool good to know, your basically proving my point though it was given to him as a title by the khilji king not by a mongal. 

[Muloghonto]

Oh and another thing- Mohammed of Ghor was not an Afghan either. He was persian and infact, a member of the Sassanid royal family. This is why he had the title 'Al-e-Sansab', where the House of Sassan were known either as Sassani or Sansabani in different parts of the empire. 

 

Afghans didnt rule over Afghanistan till pretty much the reign of Mirwais Hotak, in early 1700s. Till then, Afghanistan itself was either part of empires from India & Persia or under the boot of the Turks and Mongols.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, panther said:

Cool good to know, your basically proving my point though it was given to him as a title by the khilji king not by a mongal. 

we don't know who gave him that title. Zia Ud Din Barani, an Indian muslim convert, is our only source on Zafar Khan and he mentions that it was a title, not that it was given to him by a Khilji Sultan.

The first mention of Khilji Sultans giving the title is to Malik Dinar but as i said, by then, already 70 years of Mongol enslavement had passed amongst the Pashtuns and Pashtuns had already started adopting the name of their enslavers, much like how black people in the caribbean & USA adopted the names of their slave masters.

 

[panther]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

we don't know who gave him that title. Zia Ud Din Barani, an Indian muslim convert, is our only source on Zafar Khan and he mentions that it was a title, not that it was given to him by a Khilji Sultan.

The first mention of Khilji Sultans giving the title is to Malik Dinar but as i said, by then, already 70 years of Mongol enslavement had passed amongst the Pashtuns and Pashtuns had already started adopting the name of their enslavers, much like how black people in the caribbean & USA adopted the names of their slave masters.

 

still doesn't explain why the majority of pashtuns don't have khan surname, only those who served in turk,mughal armies have this name, look at indian pathan  all of them have khan surname because they were soldiers in mughal and turk armies, but Pashtuns in af-pak for the most part have their tribe as their surname, like my family we don't have khan in our surname. 

 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, panther said:

still doesn't explain why the majority of pashtuns don't have khan surname, only those who served in turk,mughal armies have this name, look at indian pathan  all of them have khan surname because they were soldiers in mughal and turk armies, but Pashtuns in af-pak for the most part have their tribe as their surname, like my family we don't have khan in our surname. 

 

That is Pashtun propaganda, nothing more. Most Pashtuns have Khan in their name. Since it is not a name original to them, it makes sense why not all of them have it. Also, not all Indian pathans have the title Khan to them. And you are either lying in this post or an earlier post where you said all your family have Arab names, followed by Tribal name followed by Khan.

You are simply not addressing the fact that Pashtuns adopted the name of their enslavers because they have no pride in their history, which is why Pashtuns don't care one bit about Mihir Kula or Taur Mann, who actually conquered more than Abdali did in India. 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Muloghonto

[panther]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

That is Pashtun propaganda, nothing more. Most Pashtuns have Khan in their name. Since it is not a name original to them, it makes sense why not all of them have it. Also, not all Indian pathans have the title Khan to them. And you are either lying in this post or an earlier post where you said all your family have Arab names, followed by Tribal name followed by Khan.

 

I never said that, you made that up, my family have arab names followed by our tribe thats it. 

[sandeep]

Geez Mulo, you sure seem to know a lot of in-depth stuff about Mughal and Afghan history.  Its impressive in a way, but chill with the dissing a bit.  

[Muloghonto]

Also, Khan wasnt a title given by the Turks (Mongols would definitely never do it, because they fought over people declaring themselves Khan all the time) because we have plenty of people being born as Khans, indicating that they had taken the name of their own accord. 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, panther said:

I never said that, you made that up, my family have arab names followed by our tribe thats it. 

I am sorry it comes across as dissing, but there isn't much to like about Pashtun history.

Even outsiders like Ibn Battuta and Al Biruni call them nothing more than robber tribes who raid, loot & pillage trade caravans travelling the Khyber & Bolan regions. Ibn Battuta specifically names the Afridi tribe as getting their entire income from robbing trade caravans and says not one man amongst them had the brains to form a kingdom or derive income from land & property tax. 

 

So a bunch of 'goondas' with no history or culture to speak of, who's ONLY achievement is that of being good at rape, pillage & loot, isn't much to like. 

 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, panther said:

I never said that, you made that up, my family have arab names followed by our tribe thats it. 

Just arab or do you guys have Israeli Jewish names like Yousuf, Ibrahim, Musa, etc as well ?