Greater tribal federations (uymāq):

Rūmlū: A large tribal federation around Sivas-Koyulhisar and Şebinkarahisar and Tokat and Amasya areas.
Ustājlū: A nomad tribal federation that primarily are in the areas between Sivas, Amasya and Tokat and Kirsehir.
Takalū: As also the name indicates, this is tribal federation from Teke (Antalya region).
Shāmlū: Shāmlū  stay in southern Sivas in the summer and in the region between Gaziantep in winter. Sham is both the name of the city of Damascus, but also a term generally used to refer to the then Syria.
Zu’l-Qadar: Zu’l-Qadar or Dhu’l-Qadar as it also known, is a large tribal federation living in areas around the Mara and Boz Ok (Yozgat) and Kahramanmaras province.
Qajar: This federation held in Genje area in Errân, but came originally from the Boz-Ok (Yozgat) in the 15th century.
Afshar: This nomad federation held in Adana and Central Anatolia.
Turkmān: This name was a designation for tribes Mosillu and Purnak.  These tribes living in Diyarbakır.

Bayindir: A tribal federation that primarily are in the areas between  Izmir, Balikesir and Manisa provinces.

Smaller tribal federations (uymāq):
Chepni: Chepni tribe held primarily in northern Anatolia, in and around Trabzon, Bayburt, Gümüşhane, Giresun and Jānīq (Ordu and Samsun).
Bozjalū: This tribe is part of the larger Shāmlū-association.
Kinislū: This tribe is from Hınıs, which is the area which today is around the southwestern Erzurum.
Bāyburtlū: The name of this tribe federal indicates an origin from the Bayburt region of eastern Anatolia.
Chemishkezeklū: This federation is from Çemişgezek, which is the name of the current Tunceli.
Arābgirlū: As the name also indicates that this strain is from Malatya region.
Qarāmānlū: This tribal federation has since the 15th century lived in Genje and Berda it should be a subgroup of Afshar tribe the founder of Ata Turk.
Bayat: Most Bayat-linked living in around Ankara and  Kirikkale province.

Varsāq: This tribal federation is living around Mersin province in Tarsus area.
Turgudlū: This tribe living in the Karaman area.
Ajirlū: Ajirlū is also believed to have been part of Shāmlū-related.
Pāzūkī: This tribe held Sharafnāma according to the areas around Kiği ( Bingöl), Van, Adilcevaz ( Bitlis) and Eleşkird (Ağrı). According to John E. Woods’ short-lived this tribe in the area around the current Adıyaman and Malatya.
Bahārlū: This federation was part of Qarā-Qoyunlū-Confederation and lived in Iran.
Jākirlū: This clan lived in Mughan region in the northeast (historical) Azerbaijan.

The table shows the major and minor tribal federation (uymaq). Data is primarily drawn from Faruk Sumer. But there is also referred to other sources to identify strain names are not listed in Faruk Sümers list some of the name can be a subdivision of greather clans.

Oktay Özcivit

Ergenekun (Nevruz – New year) celebrations in USA, organized by TURKSOY.

Event was held at the Historial Lincoln Theater in Washington, DC on March, 28, 2011

Enjoy a unique show of amazing music and dance performances by eleven Turkic nations from nine different countries courtesy of TURKSOY organization, featuring over 140 musicians and dancers in a spectacular performance for all ages. Cosponsored by the U.S. Azeris Network (USAN), the U.S. Turkic Network, and the Karabakh Foundation. Countries include Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova.

Click on the picture to watch the video

In March 2001, the International Organization of Turkic Culture (TURKSOY) brought the joy of Nevruz to USA. The Nevruz celebrations organized by TURKSOY took place at the UN General Assembly Hall in New York and in Washington D.C. In previous years, TURKSOY celebrated Nevruz feast in Paris and Strasbourg in addition to many cities of Turkey and Turkic Republics. http://gunturk.tk

Summary: There are no easy or cost-free ways to escape the current quagmire in Afghanistan. Although it has problems, a de facto partition of Afghanistan, in which Washington pursues nation building in the north and counterterrorism in the south, offers an acceptable fallback.

Current U.S. policy toward Afghanistan involves spending scores of billions of dollars and suffering several hundred allied deaths annually to prevent the Afghan Taliban from controlling the Afghan Pashtun homeland — with little end in sight. Those who ask for more time for the existing strategy to succeed often fail to spell out what they think the odds are that it will work in the next few years, what amount of casualties and resources they think the attempt is worth, and why. That calculus suggests that it is time to shift to Plan B.

The United States and its allies are not on course to defeating the Taliban militarily. There are now about 150,000 U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops in Afghanistan. This is 30,000 more troops than the Soviet Union deployed in the 1980s, but less than half the number required to have some chance of pacifying the country, according to standard counterinsurgency doctrine.

Nor, with an occupying army largely ignorant of local history, tribal structures, languages, customs, politics, and values, will the alliance win over large numbers of the Afghan Pashtuns, as counterinsurgency doctrine demands. In Sebastian Junger’s phrase, the United States will not capture the “human terrain” of southern and eastern Afghanistan. In November, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told The Washington Post that he wanted U.S. troops off the roads and out of Afghan homes and that the long-term presence of so many foreign soldiers would only worsen the war. “The time has come to reduce military operations,” Karzai said. “The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan . . . to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life.” Such attitudes are common — and profoundly inconsistent with the counterinsurgency strategy of deploying soldiers in local communities.

The quality of governance emanating from Karzai’s deeply corrupt government will not significantly improve, and without a comprehensive reform of the Afghan government, U.S. success is virtually impossible. As the counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen stresses, “You are only as good as the government you are supporting.” In that context, Dexter Filkins noted in The New York Times that “Afghanistan is now widely recognized as one of the world’s premier gangster-states. Out of 180 countries, Transparency International ranks it, in terms of corruption, 179th, better only than Somalia.”

Washington should accept that the Taliban will inevitably control most of Afghanistan’s south and east.

The Afghan National Army will not be ready to hold its own with the Taliban or take over major combat missions from ISAF in southern and eastern Afghanistan in any realistic time frame. According to The Economist, “Less than 3% of recruits are from the troublesome Pushtun south, from where the Taliban draw most support. Few will sign up, fearing ruthless intimidation against government ‘collaborators’ and their families. As a result, northern officers who only speak Dari have to use translators when in the Pushtu-speaking south. Northern infantry are reluctant to go there at all.” U.S. Marine Corps General James Conway told the press last August that the Afghan National Army would not be ready to take over security from U.S. troops in Afghanistan’s Helmand and Kandahar Provinces for several years because of conditions on the ground.

The Pakistani military, driven by its perception of India as the enemy and its perceived requirement for strategic depth, will not end its support for and provision of sanctuary to its longtime Afghan Taliban proxies or accept a truly independent Afghanistan.

And public opinion in the United States and other allied countries, finally, is unlikely to permit the extension of the intervention for the length of time counterinsurgency doctrine says is required for success.

With all these individual elements of the United States’ existing Afghanistan policy in serious trouble, optimism about the current strategy’s ability to meet its objectives reminds one of the White Queen’s comment in Through the Looking Glass: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” The time has come, therefore, to switch to the least bad alternative — acceptance of a de facto partition of the country.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s repeated statements that the United States will be starting to end its combat role in Afghanistan soon have weakened U.S. diplomatic strength throughout the region. The administration should stop talking about exit strategies and instead commit the United States to a long-term combat role in Afghanistan of 35,000-50,000 troops.

At the same time, however, Washington should accept that the Taliban will inevitably control most of the Pashtun south and east and that the price of forestalling that outcome is far too high for the United States to continue paying. To be sure, the administration should not invite the Taliban to dominate the Afghan Pashtun homeland, nor explicitly seek to break up Afghanistan. Rather, the United States and its partners should simply stop dying in the south and the east and let the local “correlation of forces” there take its course — while deploying U.S. air power and Special Forces for the foreseeable future in support of the Afghan army and the government in Kabul, to ensure that the north and west of Afghanistan do not succumb to the Taliban as well.

In short, President Obama should announce that the United States and its Afghan and foreign partners will pursue a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy in Pashtun Afghanistan and a nation-building strategy in the rest of the country, committing to both policies for at least the next seven to ten years. Reluctantly accepting such a de facto partition would be a profoundly disappointing outcome to the United States’ ten-year Afghan investment. But regrettably, it is now the best result that Washington can realistically and responsibly achieve.

WITHDRAW IN ORDER TO STAY

After so many years of faulty U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, there are no quick, easy, and cost-free ways to escape the current quagmire. Even with all its problems, a de facto partition offers the Obama administration the best available alternative to strategic defeat. Stressing that the United States will retain an active combat role in Afghanistan for years into the future and that it does not accept permanent Taliban control of the south, the United States and its allies would withdraw ground combat forces over several months from most of Pashtun Afghanistan, including Kandahar. ISAF would stop fighting in the mountains, valleys, and urban areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan (although it would continue to provide arms, aid, and intelligence to local tribal leaders there who want to resist). Washington would concentrate its efforts, meanwhile, on defending the areas in the north and west of Afghanistan not dominated by the Pashtuns, including Kabul.

The Afghan Taliban would be offered a modus vivendi in which each side agreed not to seek to enlarge the territory it controlled, so long as the Taliban stopped supporting terrorism — a proposal that they would probably reject. The United States would make clear that it would strike against any al Qaeda targets anywhere, any Taliban encroachments across the de facto partition line, and any sanctuaries along the Pakistani border. No terrorist safe havens would be exempt from intensified U.S. attacks on either side of the Durand Line.

The United States cannot kill the Taliban into meaningful political compromise.

Washington would enlist Afghanistan’s Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and supportive Pashtuns in this endeavor — as well as its NATO allies, Afghanistan’s various neighbors, and hopefully the United Nations Security Council. The allies would continue to accelerate the training of the Afghan army. They would devote nation-building efforts to groups in Afghanistan’s north and west that are willing to accept help and are not systematically coerced by the Taliban. And the time might eventually come when a much stronger Afghan National Army might be able, with help, to retake the south and the east.

As the policy analyst John Chipman has pointed out, “A containment and deterrence approach would be a strategy that was limited to dealing with the threat as originally defined by the coalition forces that intervened in Afghanistan. . . . It would replace the impression that an eventual drawdown of combat forces from Afghanistan would constitute victory for the enemy, with the reality of a strategy that could be maintained for a longer period while meeting the principal security goal.” In this respect, recent press reports that some U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan until the end of 2014 are a welcome development.

Such a change in U.S. strategy would make clear to all that the United States, through its prolonged military presence in Afghanistan, intends to remain a power and influence in South and Central Asia for many years to come. It would dramatically reduce U.S. military casualties and thus minimize U.S. domestic political pressure for a hasty withdrawal. It would substantially lower U.S. expenditures on Afghanistan (now nearly $7 billion per month). It would increase the likelihood that NATO allies would continue their missions in Afghanistan over the long term. It would allow the U.S. Army and Marines to recover from years of fighting two ground wars. It would encourage most of Afghanistan’s neighbors to support an acceptable stabilization of the country. It would reduce Islamabad’s capacity to use the U.S. ground role in southern Afghanistan to extract tolerance from Washington regarding terrorism emanating from Pakistan. And it would allow the Obama administration to concentrate intensively on other important issues.

NO GOOD CHOICES

Accepting a de facto partition of Afghanistan has enough downsides that choosing it makes sense only if the other options available are even worse. They are.

One alternative, for example, would be to stay the counterinsurgency course in Afghanistan no matter how long it takes, and perhaps even expand the existing commitment. This course would not make sense because U.S. interests in Afghanistan are not high enough to justify such an investment. The United States now deploys about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, yet according to the CIA, there are now only 50 to 100 al Qaeda fighters there. That is between 1,000 and 2,000 soldiers and perhaps a billion dollars per terrorist each year — far beyond any reasonable expenditure of U.S. resources given the stakes involved. The original U.S. military objective in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaeda, not to fight the Afghan Taliban, and that goal has largely been accomplished.

Another alternative would be for the United States to withdraw all its military forces from Afghanistan over the next year or two. But this course would lead to the rapid resumption of an all-out Afghan civil war and then to a probable conquest of the entire country by the Taliban. It would draw Afghanistan’s neighbors into the fighting, destabilizing the region and further souring relations between New Delhi and Islamabad. It would raise the odds of the Islamic radicalization of Pakistan, which would in turn call into question the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. It would weaken, if not rupture, the budding U.S.-Indian strategic partnership, undermine NATO’s future, and trigger a global outpouring of support for jihadist ideology and increased terrorism against liberal societies more broadly. And it would be seen around the world by friends and adversaries alike as a failure of international leadership and strategic resolve by an ever-weaker United States, with destructive aftershocks for many years to come.

A third alternative would be to try to achieve stability in Afghanistan through negotiations with the Taliban. NATO could seek to entice the Afghan Taliban to stop fighting and enter into a coalition government in Kabul. As CIA Director Leon Panetta has said, however, so long as the Taliban think they are winning, they will remain intransigent: “We have seen no evidence that they are truly interested in reconciliation where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce al-Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society. We have seen no evidence of that, and very frankly, my view is that, with regards to reconciliation, unless they’re convinced the United States is going to win and that they are going to be defeated, I think it is very difficult to proceed with a reconciliation that is going to be meaningful.” Despite the intensification of drone attacks, the United States cannot kill the Taliban into meaningful political compromise. As a senior Defense Department official told The Washington Post in late October, “The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience,” adding that if there was a sign the momentum was shifting, he did not see it.

But what about the potential problems with the de facto partition option? If the Afghan Taliban were allowed to control the south and the east, would they not invite al Qaeda fighters back into the country and restore the pre-9/11 situation? Not necessarily. Last October, then National Security Adviser James Jones said that the U.S. government’s maximum estimate was that al Qaeda had fewer than 100 members in Afghanistan, with no bases and “no ability to launch attacks on either [the United States] or [its] allies.” The Afghan Taliban may have learned their lesson about what happens when al Qaeda is allowed to run free.

If they did not, however, the United States could continue to attack al Qaeda targets on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, applying deadly pressure in ways that were not available before 9/11. The sky over Pashtun Afghanistan would be filled with Predators targeting not only terrorist activities but also, if necessary, the new Afghan Taliban government in all its dimensions. Taliban civil officials (governors, mayors, police chiefs, judges, tax collectors, and the like) would wake up every morning not knowing if they would survive the day in their offices, during routine outside activities, or in their homes at night. There would be no mountain caves in which they could hide and at the same time do their jobs. This should produce some degree of deterrence. And even if many of the roughly 300 al Qaeda fighters now in Pakistan did move a few score miles north across the border, it would not make much practical difference — surely not enough to justify an indefinite major ground war to prevent it.

What if the Afghan Taliban did not adhere to the rough boundaries of a de facto partition and sought to reconquer the entire country? They might well try, but they would be prevented from achieving their goal by the continued military might of ISAF and the growing capabilities of the Afghan National Army. Accepting a de facto partition would not lead to a civil war; such a conflict is already being fought. What partition would do is help stabilize the situation by making clear which side holds what territory.

What about the islands of non-Pashtun peoples in the south and the east, the women of those areas, and any Pashtun tribal forces that want to resist the Taliban — would not this course abandon them? Unfortunately, the answer is essentially yes. But this would be a tragic consequence of local realities that are impossible for outsiders to change in any reasonable time frame and with justifiable amounts of blood and treasure sacrificed. The United States and its allies did not go to war in Afghanistan to protect all segments of the local population there from medieval brutality, and they should not take on that decades-long task now.

Might this course lead to the emergence of an irredentist Pashtunistan and undermine the stability of Pakistan? Managing Islamabad’s reaction to a de facto partition would be a daunting challenge, because such a course would indeed stoke Pashtun separatism on both sides of the Durand Line. But the Pakistani military is already contributing to such problems through its cross-border support for the Afghan Taliban, so in truth Islamabad has little grounds for complaint. If anything, the emergence of a clear division in Afghanistan might provide just the sort of shock the Pakistani military apparently needs in order to appreciate the dangers of the game it has been playing for decades.

Would this course lead to a proxy war in Afghanistan between India and Pakistan or destabilize the region more generally? At this point, intensified competition between New Delhi and Islamabad in Afghanistan is probable no matter what policy the United States pursues. But so long as Washington maintains a long-term military commitment there, India will not put troops on the ground, and so the possibility of a major or direct conflict between India and Pakistan will be reduced.

China, Iran, Russia, and Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbors, meanwhile, all have their own interests and perspectives, and none of them currently supports a de facto partition. But none of them wants to see the reemergence of a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan either, and so as current U.S. policy proves unsustainable, they should be open to other ways of heading off that worst-case scenario. Their self-interest should therefore lead them to consider seriously a plan such as the one laid out here (although bringing them on board would require sustained and artful U.S. regional diplomacy, which is now absent).

DYING FOR A MISTAKE

Whatever their views on Afghanistan, many officials and pundits go analogy shopping to try to strengthen their cases, searching until they find ones that reinforce their preexisting policy inclinations. The truth, however, is that the differences between the current situation and other cases are so great that almost all such comparisons are unhelpful.

The analogy most commonly cited to justify the current Afghanistan strategy, for example, is the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, which is given credit for having created enough stability there to allow the United States to start withdrawing its troops while avoiding defeat. Yet as James Dobbins, former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, has pointed out, replicating the sort of wholesale shift in loyalties seen among former insurgents in Iraq would be exceedingly difficult in Afghanistan. By 2007, the Sunni Arab minority in Iraq had been decisively beaten by the majority Shiite militias, and it was only after this defeat that the Sunni Arabs turned to U.S. forces for protection. The Taliban insurgency, in contrast, is rooted in Afghanistan’s largest ethnic group, not its smallest.

These Pashtun insurgents, furthermore, have been winning their civil war for the last several years, not losing it. In Iraq, by 2007, al Qaeda had made itself unwelcome among its Sunni Arab allies through its indiscriminate violence and abusive behavior. In Afghanistan, al Qaeda is hardly present and certainly presents no comparable threat to the insurgent leadership or the Pashtun way of life. The Pashtun elders are a less influential set of interlocutors for the United States than the Iraqi sheiks, who proved able to bring almost all their adherents over with them when they decided to switch sides. In short, the surge in Iraq has little application to Afghanistan.

Changing policy so dramatically after a decadelong effort will be difficult. Explaining why a counterinsurgency strategy will not work within any acceptable time frame, acknowledging that many brave men and women have died for areas that will now be ceded to the enemy — these would be major political challenges for President Obama. Still, as painful as it would be, Western leaders would be strategically and morally deficient if they continued to pursue a strategy that has not worked in the past and is not going to work in the future.

Decades from now, historians will puzzle over why President Obama, despite his deep agonizing, as described in Bob Woodward’s recent book on the war, accepted the deployment of 100,000 troops to Afghanistan nearly ten years after 9/11, and over why policymakers spoke as if the fate of the civilized world depended on the pacification of Kandahar and Marja. Henry Kissinger has observed that “for other nations, utopia is a blessed past never to be recovered; for Americans it is just beyond the horizon.” Reluctantly accepting a de facto partition of Afghanistan is hardly a utopian outcome in Afghanistan. But it is better than all the alternatives.

By Robert D. Blackwill - foreignaffairs - February 2011

———————————————————————————————

ROBERT D. BLACKWILL is Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as U.S. Ambassador to India in 2001-3 and as Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Planning in 2003-4.

A de facto partition for Afghanistan

Pushing partition in Afghanistan

A Turkish drama about an immigrant from Macedonia coping with the death of her mother and her grieving father has clinched the top prize at China’s top international film festival. Leading man Sevket Emrulla also took home best actor honors.

Organizers of the Shanghai International Film Festival announced late Sunday that Orhan Oguz’s “Hayde Bre” won the Golden Goblet for best feature film. The jury led by “Rain Man” director Barry Levinson said it was impressed by Oguz’s stark, honest, unflinching look at a mother dealing with a modern world and her separation from her rural background.

It said the movie was sometimes disturbing, but always true to its intentions.

It described Emrulla’s performance as simple but full of meaning.

KARLUGH TURK

ARRIVAL
Establishment of Pakhli Sarkar

Tha Karlugh Turk,having a central Asian orging,became the ruling class of (Hazara Division) and maintain this until the 18 th century (1703). Thay formed a Turki Shahi state with the arrivel of Sultan-ud Din from (Kabul) who established his rule in the entire(Hazara Division Pakhli) region.This state came to be knoen as (Pakhil)Sarkar with Guli Bagh as its capital.Locals always called them Rajs,but thay contiued to use the title of Sultan till end of their rule in Hazara.however ,later on.when their rule came to an end thay assumed the titleof ”Raja” a name given to ti their anscestors by the locals.However ,samall population of Turks retained “”usmani”and “khan”with their name.

DECLINE AND FULL OF KARLUGH TURK

The last Karlugh Turk ruler of Pakhli Sarkar was [[Sultan Mehmud Khurd]]. One of his brothers, Sultan Qyas-ud-din, was Wali-e-Tanawal (Lower), and the Wali-e-Tanawal (Upper) was Sultan Sahwaj. His brother Sultan Muqarrab was Wali-e-Dhamtor, i.e. Rush areas of present [[Abbottabad]]. Pakhli Sarkar had two other important governorships. One in the areas between Battagram and Thakot ruled by Shamsher Khan and other of Kashmir governed by Sultan Kamal. Both of these governors were close relatives of Turk rulers of Pakhli Sarkar. At that time Kashmir was part of Hazara (Pakhli Sarkar).

The introduction of Sikh rule into Hazara, commenced after 1818. In this year Hashim Khan, Turk, of Manakrai, murdered his fellow-chieftain, Kamal Khan (Karlugh). The latter’s cause was espoused by the Tarin chief, Muhammad Khan, and to save himself Hashim Khan betrayed his country to the Sikhs. At his invitation Makhan Singh, the Sikh Governor of Rawalpindi, invaded Hazara with 500 sowars, built a fort at Serai Saleh, and levied tribute from the Haripur plain.

Karlugh Turk in Kashmir

After the loss of [[Pakhli]] state in 1703 and after 1872 settlement, nearly half of the Turk population migrated to nearby Hazara and Kashmir regions. In [[Azad Kashmir]] these migrated Turk clans are living in different villages like in [[Muzaffarabad]] they are present in Bararkot, Bheri, Lambian Pattian, Shawai, Chanjal([[Pathika]]), Madar, Kahori, Gari Dupatta, Sanweyari, Chinari, Karnah(leepa valley) and in [[Muzaffarabad]] town. In Indian-held Kashmir these clans are found in Bara Mula, Bari pura, [[Srinagar]] and other adjoining areas.
In [[Azad Kashmir]] Turks had made a non-political organisation namely “Turk Welfare Association (Reg: Azad Kashmir on May 2, 1984)”. The milestone of this organisation was laid by Raja Muhammad Yousaf Khan Turk, Fazal-ur-Rehman Khan Turk, Professor Muhammad Afsar Usmani, Raja Ayub khan Turk, Marshal Muhammad Latif Khan Turk and other elders of Turk clans from different areas in 1983. In this very first meeting, Turks from Hazara also joined and Raja Ammanullah Khan (former speaker NWFP Assembly) and Raja Muhammad Irshad Khan (author Treekh-e-Hazara) actively participated. The rks of [[Azad Kashmir]] are [[Hindko]] speaking.

Karlugh Turk Settlements

The descendants of the Karlugh Turks continue to live in the [[Hazara Division|Hazara]] area of [[Pakistan]] and [[Azad Kashmir]], mostly in the mountainous regions. They had continued to maintain a very secluded and exclusive lifestyle until the late 19th and early 20th century. According to the ”’Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 13, p. 79”’, published in 1909, some 2000 persons returned themselves as Turks, descendants of the [[Turkmen people|Turkomans]] who came with Timur in 1391. It is more probable, given the fact that most Turk villages were in the inaccessible mountainous regions at the time of 1901 census, that the actual number could be as high as around 10,000.

Currently, some of the main Karlugh Turkish villages in Hazara Division are Manakrai and Bayan in [[Haripur District]], Behali and Mohar in [[Mansehra District]] and RichhBehn in [[Abbottabad District]] and on the monutains between Pakistan and AJK along with Neelum Valley up to Patika.

Israr Turk

Qarluq / Karluk Hazaras

Kaseinov said that they would begin working to introduce Nevruz celebrations in the Arabic world next year. 

The International Organization of Turkic Culture (TURKSOY) and Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) has signed a cooperation agreement.

In a written statement released Wednesday, TURKSOY said that the Secretary General of TURKSOY Dusen Kaseinov and Director General of ISESCO Abdulaziz Osman Altwaijri signed the cooperation agreement on April 8.

The signature ceremony for the agreement took place in Baku, Azerbaijan within the frame of an Inter-cultural Dialogue Forum.

The agreement would facilitate close cooperation between Islamic countries and countries who speak Turkish.

Kaseinov said that they would begin working to introduce Nevruz celebrations in the Arabic world next year.

Altwaijri, in his part, said that with the cooperation agreement, relations between the Islamic and Turkish worlds would get strengthened.

COOPERATION AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN TURKSOY AND ISESCO 

Signing an agreement with the Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, ISESCO, The International Oranization of Turkic Culture TÜRKSOY has added yet another International Cooperation Agreement to its existing agreements.

In the ceremony held on April 8th, 2011, TÜRKSOY Secretary General Düsen Kaseinov and  ISESCO General Director Abdülaziz Osman Altwaijri, have signed the agreement which is aimed at the development and enhancement of the cooperation between the two organizations.  The signature protocol which was organized within the framework of the Cross-Cultural Dialogue Forum, was held in the Golestan Palace in Baku, Azerbaijan. The signing ceremony was attended by eminent personalities from TÜRKSOY Member countries such as the Minister of Culture of Kyrgyzstan Nurlan Şakiyev, The Ambassador of Kazakhstan in  Azerbaijan Serik Primbetov and officials from the Ministries of Culture of Turkey and Azerbaijan.

TÜRKSOY Secretary General Duysen Kaseinov  who made a speech during the signing ceremony of the agreement which aims at the strengthening of cultural ties between Muslim countries and Turkic speeking countries stressed the fact that these are very strong ties which they want to consolidate even more in cultural terms. Kaseinov added that Nevruz being a feast celebrated accross the world, thanks to the fruitful cooperation which they have now started with ISESCO,  TÜRKSOY is currently developing various projects to make these Nevruz Celebrations known to the Arab world as well next year.

ISESCO General Director Abdülaziz Osman Altwaijri, said he is happy about the signature of such an important cooperation agreement with  TÜRKSOY. Altwaijri also said he is strongly convinced that through this agreement  the existing ties between the Muslim World and the Turkic World will become even stronger in the years to come. Altwaijri who also referred to TÜRKSOY as an organization which strongly contributes to the  development of a broader knowledge about Turkic Culture around the world, congratulated TÜRKSOY for its recent works and activities  and said that this cooperation agreement is of  great importance for ISESCO as well.

A 10-day long Turkish Cuisine Festival has started in India.

Turkish cuisine festival has started in Calcutta city of West Bengal India. The festival includes selective examples from the Turkish cuisine. Stuffed fish, mixed stuffing, green beans, shrimp and shephard salad are among the Turkish foods displayed at the festival.

Cüneyt Bahadır, a Turkish chef participating in the festival said “We have decided to open Turkish cuisine in Calcutta. The whole world knows Turkish cuisine. However we have just decided to enter India. We will try to display the best Turkish foods here.”

The reason to open this festival in Calcutta is that the rivals of Turkish cuisine, Chinese and Italian cuisines are well known in this city.

Ever since Pakistan began lobbying against Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai’s efforts to build a long-term strategic partnership with the U.S.,urging him to look to Pakistan instead — and its Chinese ally — for help in striking a peace deal with the Taliban and rebuilding the Afghan economy, it was perceived to be Pakistan calling the shots for a new move on the chessboard of the Great Game.

However, despite how attractive that move may seem to them, it cannot come to fruition when few to even none of the players will consent to an all Afghan initiative; but in actuality, they are keeping the Afghan majority at bay from asserting their desire for such a plan. That said, this Pakistani rush to stack the deck in their favor in Afghanistan will fail due to the fact that there can only be one legitimate way to obtain stability in Afghanistan; through an all Afghan national ratification of a reconciliation process put forth for a genuine endgame to this decades-old grinding war in Afghanistan.

Subsequent to Pakistan’s clandestine call in Kabul, the Kremlin announced a three-day official visitby Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari to Russia at the invitation of President Dmitry Medvedev. This was scheduled ahead of Zardari’s trip to Washington, which has already been postponed; and now seems quite unlikely to take place anytime in the near future. Meanwhile, Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmay Rasoul was immediately sent to Beijing for a quick rendezvous with his Chinese counterpart. And, thereafter, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi was due to arrive in Moscow last Thursday on an official visit.

It seems, by all appearances, that this quartet is attempting to make strides towards an effort to introduce a model initiative initially engineered by Pakistan’s craving for a prime leadership status in Afghanistan’s forthcoming endgame.

However, in the wake of the May 2 killing of Osama Bin Laden and the Great Game players’ interlaced stopovers in Moscow and Beijing, along comes another keen contestant in the game, but a solitary one; the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must now consider steps to advance his partnership cajolement with Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

These interwoven trips are all a push for strategic positioning by the aforementioned Great Game playing quartet in a post U.S. troop drawdown environment starting in July 2011 and ending in 2014. It also boils down to acrimoniously preventing a long term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Pakistan, as the frontrunner to this antagonism, seeks to legitimize this notion where all parties have yet to give their endorsements. On the other hand, the underrepresented by majority, inept and weak government of Hamid Karzai who seems to have grown closer to Pakistan over the last year, cannot weather an outcome where all the key players have the decisive upper hand in this Great Game. Therefore, Karzai, whether he likes it or not, will have to abide by any outcome dictated to him by the major players.

In that context, if Pakistan’s prayers are to be answered, the planned withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan by 2014 will create such a power vacuum that it will allow Islamist militants now fighting U.S. forces to destabilize Afghanistan and all of Central Asia. Such an upsurge in Islamic fundamentalist violence and heroin trafficking could upset the predominantly Muslim, oil-and gas-producing regions; forcing Moscow to send thousands of its troops back into its former breakaway republics bordering Afghanistan and starting a fresh round of Russian Islamic fundamentalist contention, where the aged cold war era Great Game rivalries between Russia and the West could resurface.

In retrospect, NATO may undertake combat operations beyond 2014 if and when the need arises. As the Obama administration said, “A conditions-based drawdown will begin in July 2011.”

In that regards, clearly, the billions of dollars that have been pumped into the upgrading of Soviet-era military bases in Afghanistan in the recent past and the construction of new military bases, especially in Mazar-i-sharif, Khost and Heart regions, fall into clearer perspective.

Additionally, the upcoming TAPI (Turkmen-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) natural gas pipeline will become the primary finished product of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It consolidates NATO’s political and military presence in the strategic high plateau that overlooks Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan and China. In other words, TAPI proves a perfect setting for the alliance’s future projection of military power for “crisis management” in Central Asia — or should it?

While most players in the said circle of four — Pakistan to a higher degree — share the apprehensions of the prospect of a long-term American military presence in Afghanistan, and since the chemistry of the US-Pakistan relationship has drastically changed following the U.S. killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad (Pakistan), Pakistan faces grave insecurities in the period ahead; hence, Pakistan is looking for regional support systems; fiercely advocating for Afghanistan to join the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) where Pakistan will also attempt to join.

So far, Pakistan has shown receptiveness towards Russia and China; therefore, the Great Game players’ decisions will not constitute a genuine endgame result for Afghanistan. Even if it did, the Afghan silent majority — not Mr. Karzai, who does not represent the majority — has the ultimate say for ratifying the notion of U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Therefore, Afghan national reconciliation ratification for stability in Afghanistan should be of interest to all.

Khalil Nouri

Khalil Nouri is the cofounder of New World Strategies Coalition, Inc., a native think tank for a nonmilitary solution studies for Afghanistan, and a member of Afghanistan Study Group.

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE: DARI

Ten years in Afghanistan.

Ten years of war and destruction and ten years of one little boy’s life.

This is Mir’s story. 

A boy of eight, growing into adulthood in one of the toughest places on earth. 

Cheeky and inquisitive, Mir takes us on a unique journey through post 9/11 Afghanistan.

Following the international hit The Boy who Plays on the Buddhas of Bamiyan, THE BOY MIR covers not just one year but ten. It tracks the irrepressible and lovable Mir from a naïve 8-year-old to a fully grown adult. Over this decade, it not only is a journey that follows Mir as he journeys into early adulthood in one of the toughest places on earth but it a film that is unmatched in mirroring and unveiling the vitally important story of modern Afghanistan.

Since 2001, Afghanistan has seen many changes but one thing remains constant: this is an extremely turbulent country. Many thousands have been killed in attacks, largely by a resurgent Taliban. Drug lords, overseeing a booming opium trade, control private armies in the south and east. Nato currently has some 60,000 troops in the country and is heading towards 90,000. Yet, in Kabul at least the wrecked planes at the airport are gone and the dozens of destroyed buildings along the main roads have been replaced with new apartments, a shopping mall, new hotels and fancy restaurants. But even here, at the heart of international security, there have begun suicide bombings, kidnappings and mortar attacks.

DIRECTED BY Phil GRABSKY

Turkic countries should create a visa-free travel zone to enhance connections and trade, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Tuesday following the signing of an agreement to lift visa restrictions between Turkey and Kyrgyzstan.

“Turkish citizens will be able to visit Kyrgyzstan with their passports without a need for visas and vice versa. The trucks of our countries will be able to travel [across borders] more easily from now on,” Erdoğan told reporters late Tuesday at a press conference with visiting Kyrgyz Prime Minister Almazbek Atambaev.

The other Central Asian republics need to follow Kyrgyzstan’s lead in helping to create a Schengen-style visa-free travel zone in the region, Erdoğan said. He noted that while Turkey does not demand visas from Uzbek or Kazakh citizens, both Tashkent and Astana require Turks to obtain a visa when traveling to those countries.

“We hope we can get over the problem [with the other Central Asian countries] after we take this step with Kyrgyzstan,” Erdoğan said.

Lifting visas with neighboring countries and others in the region constitutes an important element of Turkish foreign policy as embraced by the current government. Last year’s abolition of visa restrictions with Syria provided a boon for local Turkish economies close to the border, but the current unrest could now prompt a wave of Syrians to flee to Turkey.

Cooperation with Kyrgyzstan

A high-level strategic cooperation council between Turkey and Kyrgyzstan has also been established, Erdoğan said. “Kyrgyzstan is going through a tough period and we hope that it will reach brighter days,” the prime minister said.

The two countries are taking historic steps with the strategic cooperation council, as well as a tax exemption agreement, Atambaev said, adding that the next step would be to solve work permit issues.

The Kyrgyz prime minister said Turkey had always supported Kyrgyzstan with donations and humanitarian assistance.

“It was Turkey that evacuated Kyrgyz citizens from Libya [during that country’s unrest,” Atambaev said. “Prime Minister Erdoğan donated $61 million to Kyrgyzstan today. We have received $71 million in donations from Turkey in total this year.”

Noting that Kyrgyzstan would also lift visas with Russia and set up a customs union regime, the Kyrgyz leader said: “We’ll establish a large economic region from Ankara to Moscow.”

Turkey has changed a lot in eight years and is now granting loans instead of receiving them, Atambaev said, adding that Ankara was an example for Bishkek.

During his visit, Atambaev also attended a Turkey-Kyrgyzstan Business and Investment Forum on Wednesday with Ali Babacan, Turkey’s state minister for economy.

Kyrgyzstan recently launched a reform process and has adopted a new constitution, Babacan said, adding that Turkey was ready to share its experiences with the Central Asian country.

Noting that Turkish-Kyrgyz trade volume increased four-fold in the last eight years to reach $160 million, Babacan said: “Our new target is $1 billion, and that is a realistic goal.”

There are approximately 300 Turkish companies operating in Kyrgyzstan with a total investment of around $500 million.

ANKARA – Hürriyet Daily News

The massacre by Armenians of the Azerbaijani Turks in the Upper- Karabakh is on the agenda of the Hungarian parliament.

Hungary’s third biggest party Jobbik is the sponsor of the proposal.

The Deputy-Head of the Parliamentary Foreign Relations Committee Márton Gyöngyösi, said Armenia in its 1992 attack on the Upper Karabakh occupied one fifth of Azerbaijani lands.

Gyöngyösi said further that 613 people, mostly women and children, were massacred by the Armenians in 1992, and noted that the UN Security Council, the European Parliament, OSCE and NATO also condemned this genocide by the Armenians.

The problems of 1 million refugees are still unresolved, Gyöngyösi said, adding that the international community, while showing close attention in some tragedies is somehow ignoring the tragic plight of Azerbaijani Turks.

The main opposition party Jobbik Party in Hungary, positioned on the right of the political spectrum, also made an appeal to the Hungarian parliament to fulfill its historical responsibility and condemn Armenia’s attacks on Azerbaijan.

Azerbaycan’da Ermenilerin Yaptığı Katliamlar

What we are observing in Libya is the rebirth of colonialism.  Only this time it is not individual European governments competing for empires and resources. The new colonialism operates under the cover of “the world community,” which means NATO and those countries that cooperate with it. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was once a defense alliance against a possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Today NATO provides European troops in behalf of American hegemony.

Washington pursues world hegemony under the guises of selective “humanitarian intervention” and “bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed peoples.” On an opportunistic basis, Washington targets countries for intervention that are not its “international partners.”  Caught off guard, perhaps, by popular revolts in Tunisia and Egypt, there are some indications that Washington responded opportunistically and encouraged the uprising in Libya. Khalifa Hifter, a suspected Libyan CIA asset for the last 20 years, has gone back to Libya to head the rebel army.

Gaddafi got himself targeted by standing up to Western imperialism. He refused to be part of the US Africa Command.  Gaddafi saw Washington’s scheme for what it is, a colonialist’s plan to divide and conquer.

The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) was created by order of President George W. Bush in 2007. AFRICOM describes its objective:

“Our approach is based upon supporting U.S. national security interests in Africa as articulated by the President and Secretaries of State and Defense in the National Security Strategy and the National Military Strategy. The United States and African nations have strong mutual interests in promoting security and stability on the continent of Africa, its island states, and maritime zones. Advancing these interests requires a unified approach that integrates efforts with those of other U.S. government departments and agencies, as well as our African and other international partners.”

Forty-nine countries participate in the US Africa Command, but not Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast. There is Western military intervention in these non-member countries except for Zimbabwe.

One traditional means by which the US influences and controls a country is by training its military and government officers. The program is called  International Military and Education Training (IMET). AFRICOM reports that “in 2009 approximately 900 military and civilian students from 44 African countries received education and training in the United States or their own countries. Many officers and enlisted IMET graduates go on to fill key positions in their militaries and governments.”

AFRICOM lists as a key strategic objective the defeat of the “Al-Qaeda network.” The US Trans Sahara Counter Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP) trains and equips “partner nation forces “ to preclude terrorists from establishing sanctuaries and aims to “ultimately defeat violent extremist organizations in the region.”

Apparently, after ten years of “the war on terror” an omnipotent al-Qaeda now ranges across Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia in Africa, across the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the UK and is such a threat within the United States itself as to require a $56 billion “Homeland Security” annual budget.

The al-Qaeda threat has become Washington’s best excuse for intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries and for subverting American civil liberties.

Sixty-six years after the end of World War II and 20 years after the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the US still has an European Command, one of nine military commands and six regional commands.

No other country feels a need for a world military presence.  Why does Washington think that it is a good allocation of scarce resources to devote $1.1 trillion annually to military and security “needs”?  Is this a sign of Washington’s paranoia?  Is it a sign that only Washington has enemies?

Or is it an indication that Washington assigns the highest value to empire and squanders taxpayers’ monies and the country’s credit-worthiness on military footprints, while millions of Americans lose their homes and their jobs?

Washington’s expensive failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have not tempered the imperial ambition.  Washington can continue to rely on the print and TV media to cover up its failures and to hide its agendas, but expensive failures will remain expensive failures.  Sooner or later Washington will have to acknowledge that the pursuit of empire has bankrupted the country.

It is paradoxical that Washington and its European “partners” are seeking to extend control over foreign lands abroad while immigration transforms their cultures and ethnic compositions at home.  As Hispanics, Asians, Africans, and Muslims of various ethnicities become a larger and larger percentage of the populations of the “First World,” support for the white man’s empire fades away.  Peoples desiring education and in need of food, shelter, and medical care will be hostile to maintaining military outposts in the countries of their origins.

Who exactly is occupying whom?

Parts of the US are reverting to Mexico. For example, demographer Steve Murdock, a former director of the US Census Bureau, reports that two-thirds of Texas children are Hispanics and concludes: “It’s basically over for Anglos.”

Ironic, isn’t it, while Washington and its NATO puppets are busy occupying the world, they are being occupied by the world.

by Paul Craig Roberts

Turkish Yeni Sömürgecilik

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.  His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

By Inci Bowman

The United Nations General Assembly recognized the 21st of March this year (2010) as the International Day of Nowruz, a spring festival of Persian and Turkic origin, celebrated by more than 300 million people all over the world. The UN Assembly called on those states which celebrate Nowruz to study its traditions and to share that knowledge with the international community by organizing annual festive events. The resolution notes the festival’s “affirmation of life in harmony with nature, the awareness of the inseparable link between constructive labor and natural cycles of renewal, and the solicitous and respectful attitude towards natural sources of life.”

Nowruz or Navrez (in Crimean Tatar) is celebrated on the day of the vernal equinox, March 20 or 21 depending on the year. It has been widely celebrated for more than 3,000 years in Central Asia and the Middle East. Today the people in the Balkans, Crimea, the Caucasus, Iran, Turkey and the Central Asian republics participate in Nowruz festivities. Throughout the Turkic world, the arrival of spring has been celebrated under different names: Nowruz, Nevruz, Navruz, Navrez, Nawrez, Nooruz, Noruz, Yıl Başı (New Year), Yeni Gün (New Day), Ulusun Ulu Günü (Great Day of the Nation) and Ergenekon Bayramı(Ergenekon Holiday). In this article, I am using the word Nowruz because it is the frequently used version in English.

Nowruz Celebrations in Crimea and Washington DC,

Before the Soviet rule and the deportation from their homeland, Crimean Tatars actively celebrated the arrival of spring. During the long years of exile, if they observed Nowruz, it was likely in the privacy of their homes. With the return of the Tatar population to their homeland, the Nowruz festivities are being revived in Crimea. The Cultural Center in Kerch (Crimea) announced an ambitious program of drama, music and various competions to celebrate the traditional Navrez holiday. In Simferopol, the Republican Committee for Interethnic Relations and Formerly Deported Citizens, the State TV Company ‘Krym’ and the Crimean Tatar Art and Ethnography Foundation organized an all-day Nowruz celebration on March 20, 2010. Activities included traditional dancing and music, kuresh (wrestling), a fashion show exhibiting national dresses and display of handcrafts. Various embroidery guilds also participated in the Nowruz festivities. The Azeri people living in Simferopol joined the Crimean Tatars and brought many sweets traditionally prepared forNowruz.

Ayla Bakkalli and Dr.Christopher Murphy, at the Nowruz event, Library of Congress

In Washington, DC, we had a chance to participate in a formal event to celebrate Nowruz. The newly formed Nowruz Commission organized a program to observe the arrival of spring at the Library of Congress on March 17, 2010. The event opened with a reception in the Great Hall, followed by a concert by Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Tajik musicians and singers, playing on traditional instruments and singing popular songs. The second part of the concert included Iranian popular singer Leila and her innovative group of musicians (Soshianse) who performed compositions in the spirit of Nowruz, all promoting peace and friendship. There were also several exhibits, featuring cultural tables.

The Nowruz Commission is a multicultural non-profit organization established for the purpose of promoting the arrival of spring. It provides a forum for people of all cultures who celebrate Nowruz. Honorary Co-Chairmen of the organization are mostly ambassadors representing countries where Nowruz is observed officially or countries with a population who celebrate Nowruz. That is, the list of Co-Chairmen included ambassadors from Afghanistan, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine. Iran was represented by members of the Iranian community because the US has no diplomatic relations with Iran. Please note that Ukraine was invited to join as an Honorary Co-Chairman of the Nowruz Commission because of the Crimean Tatars who have traditionally celebrated the arrival of spring. Was it not good of the Commission to think of the Crimean Tatars and the Ukrainian diplomats who officially represent them in Washington? As a result, Ayla Bakkalli, President of the American Association of Crimean Turks in New York, and I were invited to attended the Nowruz Celebration at the Library of Congress. We felt honored to be included in this joyous event in the company of distinguished guests.

Model table, with traditional Nowruz delicacies, provided by the Embassy of Kazakhstan

Nowruz as a Turkic Holiday

As we celebrate the arrival of spring, we note thatNowruz has been observed by Turkic peoples living in a wide territory extending from Central Asia and Siberia to the Caucasus, Crimea, Anatolia and the Balkans. It is an official holiday in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and a public holiday in Turkey. Other Turkic peoples such as Uyghurs, Yakuts, Karakalpaks, Volga or Kazan Tatars, Bashkirs and Crimean Tatars also participate in spring celebrations. Nowruz is also a holiday in Iran, a day that marks the beginning of the Persian New Year.

According to the pre-Islamic Turkic calendar, the Twelve Animal Calendar, the New Year began in March. Hence the association of spring with the New Year. Each year was named for an animal and twelve years defined a period. This year (2010), for example, is the year of the Tiger and so was 1998. However, this calendar is no longer used by Turkic nations.Nowruz is also regarded by some groups as a celebration of independence, a tradition rooted in the “Ergenekon Destan” (Epic). Accordingly, the forefathers of Turkic people set themselves free on the day ofNowruz and left the valley named Ergenekon, where they were confined.

Traditionally, preparations for Nowruz involve cleaning houses, purchasing new clothes and cooking special meals and sweets. On the day of Nowruz, families gather for a festive meal, visit relatives and friends, and share meals with them. Special meals are prepared and tables decorated for the occasion. They also visit cemeteries to honor their deceased relatives. Holiday activities may include horseracing and related games on horseback, wrestling, singing, folk dancing, storytelling, and reading of poetry and destans (epics).

Nowruz is also a great holiday for children who go around in their neighborhood, singing and reciting traditional rhymes, and collecting small gifts. We know, for example, that in Crimea and Crimean Tatar communities in Romania, children decorated a dry branch with early spring flowers such as snowdrops and crocuses and walked in neighborhoods, singing folksongs. The gifts included sweets, dry staples such as grains or legumes, money, and handkerchiefs or scarves, placed on the branch with early spring flowers.

The Crimean Tatar folk literature includes many Navrez (or Nawrez) ballads. As the first appearance of migratory birds is a joyful sign of spring, the folksongs relating to Nowruz are replete with references to birds such as storks, geese and swallows.

The geese soar in the air,
I’ll be the storyteller, you the scribe,
First arrives spring, then summer,
Happy Nawrez to all!

Nawrez ushered in the spring,
Then arrived ducks and geese,
Also arrived the chirping of birds,
Happy Nawrez to all!*

Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar dolls, provided by the Embassy of Ukraine

The arrival of the spring is welcomed by all.Nowruz is an occasion for friendship, renewal and joy. It is a holiday that has been observed by Turkic peoples for centuries, a celebration closely linked to their traditions and cultures.

While most of the people who observe Nowruz are Muslims, it is not a religious holiday and predates the acceptance of Islam. Nowruz may seem to be a religious holiday, however, as prayers are said with meals served. In rural communities, the first sowing of grains in the spring may often be accompanied with special prayers. Over the centuries, certain beliefs and legends evolved, linking Nowruz with religious teachings. Some of these beliefs are as follows:

• God created the Earth on Nowruz, when the night and day were equal.
• God created Adam on Nowruz.
• After Noah’s Ark ran aground on Mount Ararat, the Prophet Noah sent a crow to find out whether the earth had dried. But the crow did not come back. He sent a pigeon which returned with a branch in its beak. That was the sign that the earth had dried and the spring had arrived. Noah then stepped off the Ark and touched the ground on Nowruz.
• The day when the Prophet Moses led his followers to safety by opening a path across the Red Sea, as they fled Egypt, coincided with Nowruz. Of course, these beliefs have nothing to do with historical facts. Despite the appearance of being a religious observance, Nowruz is a traditional or in some countries also a national holiday.

I sense that some people in Crimea object to observing Nowruz, thinking that it is an archaic (traditional) custom or celebrating the arrival of spring is linked with paganism.

Well, what do people do to celebrate Nowruz? In preparation for Nowruz, they clean houses, make or purchase new cloths (especially for children), cook special meals. On the day of Nowruz, families may get together to share a special meal and visit relatives. They may also visit the cemeteries to honor their deceased relatives. They may participate in sports or games, and so on. These are all activities that strengthen family and communal ties and renew friendships. How could anyone object to them?

I would like to conclude by a poem by the well known Crimean Tatar poet Riza Fazil that appeared in Yanı Dünya, 21 March 2009, and translated from Crimean Tatar by Mubeyyin B. Altan.

Navrez*

When the plow is lodged into the misty soil,
And the sheppard drives his flock to the desert,
I rejoice seeing the early appearance of Navrez,
Seeing the smiling sun’s greeting life.

Navrez is the first step taken towards the fields,
It lets you appreciate the gratifying feelings of labor,
Navrez, it is the celebration of spring for us,
As the most pleasant sentiments begins with Navrez.

I walk around envying the world that day,
I smell the fragrance of spring everywhere,
Navrez, it brings beauty to the homeland,
Since my youth I have been in love with her.

Riza Fazil

Posted: 20 April 2010

Notes

*I am grateful to Mubeyyin B. Altan for giving us permission to publish the English translation of the Crimean Tatar ballads and the poem Navrez by Riza Fazil.

The article is based on the four separate messages I sent to Crimea-L on Nowruz between 20 and 23 March 2010.

There is considerable literature on Nowruz in Turkish, including an encyclopedia. A few titles are cited below:

Çay, Abdulhaluk M. Nevruz: Turk Ergenekon Bayrami, 8th ed. Ankara, 1999.

Güzel, Abdurrahman. “Nevruz in Turkish Culture and National Unity-Solidarity.”
Online, in English: http://www.stradigma.com/english/march2003/articlesprint_10.html

Kartalligolu, Yavuz. “Kirim Turklerinde Nevruz,” pp. 309-315. In: Turk Dunyasi Nevruz Ansiklopedisi [Turkic World Encyclopedia of Nevruz], ed. M.O. Oguz. Ankara: Ataturk Kultur Merkezi Yayini, No. 298, 2004.

Photo credits: Inci Bowman

http://www.iccrimea.org

International Organization of Turkic Culture (TURKSOY) is introducing the feast of Nevruz to USA.  In previous years, TURKSOY celebrated Nevruz feast in Paris and Strasbourg in addition to many cities of Turkey and Turkic Republics. This year TURKSOY is bringing the joy of Nevruz to USA. The Nevruz celebrations organized by TURKSOY will take place at the UN General Assembly Hall in New York and in Washington D.C starting from March 24^th 2011.  

PROGRAM OF NEVRUZ CELEBRATIONS IN THE USA

March 24^th, 2011 
13.00 Press Conference (UN Headquatres – New York)
18.00 Nevruz Concert (UN Headquarters-General Assembly Hall – New York)
20.00 Reception (Permanent Mission of Turkey – New York)

March 25^th, 2011
14.00 Panel on Nevruz (Boston – Harvard University)

March 26^th, 2011
20.00 Nevruz Concert (Town-Hall, Times Square, New York)

March 28^th, 2011
14.00 Panel on Nevruz (Georgetown University- Washington)
19.00 Nevruz Concert (Lincoln Theatre, Washington)

UN RECOGNIZED MARCH 21^ST AS THE INTERNATIONAL DAY OF NEVRUZ

The UN officially recognizes Nevruz, which was included into the UNESCO ‘‘Intangible Cultural Heritage List’’ in 2009. Thus March 21^st was declared to be the ‘‘International Day of Nevruz’’ during the session of the General Assembly of the UN on December 2nd, 2009 (document A/64/L.30/Rev.2). Through this resolution, the General Assembly calls on countries that celebrate Nevruz, intergovernmental organizations, notably UNESCO, and non-governmental organizations to cooperate for the promotion and celebration of Nevruz.

TURKSOY: THE CULTURAL BRIDGE OF THE TURKIC WORLD

The Culture Ministers of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan Turkmenistan, and Turkey signed the “Agreement on the Principles as Regards the Foundation and Activities of TURKSOY” and founded TURKSOY on July 12, 1993.

As an organization of multilateral cultural cooperation established with the aim of researching, promoting and handing Turkic culture down to upcoming generations, TURKSOY has been celebrating the festival of Nevruz with various activities each year since 1995. Moreover, upon the initiative of TURKSOY, Nevruz celebrations also took place at the UNESCO Headquarters on March 29, 2009 with the participation of more than 100 artists from 8 countries.

TURKSOY, which is an international organization that shares the same principles and objectives as UNESCO and does not restrict its activities to its member states, took the necessary steps to celebrate Nevruz at the UN General Assembly in 2011 in order to support intercultural rapprochement and the process of dialogue between civilisations. Therefore, the UN General Assembly Hall has been put at the disposal of TURKSOY for the Nevruz celebrations on March 24, 2011. The activites that will be organized at the UN General Assembly Hall in New York and then in Washington will take place with the contributions of the Permanent Missions of TURKSOY member states to the UN, notably Turkey, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation.

Nevruz festivities, which will continue in Washington after New York, will be an occasion for better acquainting the American people with the rich Turkic culture as well as for building new bridges across cultures through the universal language of culture and arts.

THE MEANING OF NEVRUZ

Nevruz is considered as the herald of spring and the ‘‘new day’’ by the peoples of the vast Eurasian geography. It symbolizes the bountiful, fertile and lively characteristics of the awakening nature as well as the values of love, fraternity, sharing, peace and friendship. Nevruz is the day Mother Nature starts breathing again and turns green in an act of resurrection. Also known under such names as Navrız, Yeni Gün (New Day), Ulu Kün (Holy Day),Mart Dokuzu (9^th of March), Çıl Pazı, Çanı Kün, Şagaa, 

Isıah and Yeni Kün (New Day). Nevruz is one of the most significant cultural festivals that have a history of more than five thousand years, is considered to be the holiest day of the Turkic world and is celebrated with lively activities. As the beginning of a new year, the festival symbolizes rebirth and it is an occasion for wishes, hopes and expectations for the future. Therefore, it is a very particular festival that might be unique in the world. With Nevruz, not only the nature is born again and renews itself with zeal. People are also cleansed and renewed both physically and spiritually. People’s emotions and ideas are also renewed with the beginning of a new year. Therefore, Nevruz represents the joy of nature’s renewal as well as faith in mankind and best wishes.           

The day considered by ancient Turks and Persians as New Year’s Eve was called ‘‘Nevruz’’ in Persian, meaning ‘‘new day’’. The day when the sun enters Aries and the night and day become equally long corresponds to March 21 on the Gregorian calendar. Featuring in the 12-Animal Turkic Calendar, the first calendar used by Turks, Nevruz is a very old tradition and has been celebrated with various rituals as it is today. According to the Jalali Calendar elaborated for the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah, the day when the sun enters Aries was accepted as the beginning of a new year. It is known that Seljuk rulers came to the throne in March and that they celebrated Nevruz with the people. The spring festival of Nevruz, which symbolizes the good and the beautiful as well as happiness and peace, has been traditionally celebrated across a vast region. Its history is as old as the history of mankind. Today it is celebrated in a region extending from China to the Balkans in similar ways, under different names. After gaining their independence, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan declared March 21 a public holiday.

Various legends and religious beliefs about Nevruz emphasize a movement from closed spaces to outdoors as well as the longing for sun, warmth and abundance. A striking feature that is common to all these myths is the desire to attain peace and tranquillity by changing the present circumstances. Such elements present in legends and beliefs as the birth of fire, melting the mountains and ploughing fields and domesticating animals represent the discovery of fire by man during the Ice Age, the transition into the Chalcolithic Age and the entry into the Neolithic Age respectively. Other elements of Nevruz tales such as fire, water, earth and caves are common to all humanity and indispensible in mankind’s history. However, fire is of particular significance for Turks regardless of their religion or faith. In the cultures of a wide spectrum of Turkic peoples ranging from the Altai, to Tatars and from Azeris to the Karaites and to the Gagauz, fire and water are necessary for physical and spiritual purification. Therefore, it is a tradition preserved throughout the vast Turkic geography to light a bonfire and jump over it while making wishes during Nevruz.

At one time the Pashtuns, under their political spiritual leader Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the very first Afghan President Mohammad Daud Khan, were secular and non-violent; but now the majority has become the most radical Islamist due to the ill-conceived and hazardous path chosen by the players of this intensely contested game. So far, ten years into this latest episode of competition, there is neither a win nor a loss in sight. As a result, the players’ course of actions is creating an atmosphere of distrust, deceit and ultimately future apologetic solicitations due to erroneous acts committed by them. With that in mind, peace to this decades old war is implausible unless there is a viable solution by the Afghans themselves to end this undreamed of quagmire.

The summit in Lisbon last November was suppose to determine NATO’s strategy in Afghanistan, including a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition forces; and a plan to transition responsibility to the Afghan forces by 2014. However, a spat over the strategy erupted in Kabul between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and General David Petraeus. Karzai first and foremost called for the end to night raids—which were dramatically increased by Gen. Petraeus– on Afghan homes, and for American troops to get off Afghan roads. Indeed, this was a call in direct opposition to Petraeus’ strategy in Afghanistan.

This personal predicament between Petraeus and Karzai is the current fundamental disparity in the Afghan war effort; Petraeus – a warrior and a counterinsurgency campaigner, versus Karzai – a Taliban whisperer trying to show solidarity with them by opposing the counterinsurgency campaigner. In addition, he [Karzai] also lacks reconciliation skillfulness, credibility and legitimacy to weld his government with the former Afghan Islamic fundamentalist regime.

In early March 2011, Hamid Karzai and the British Prime Minister David Cameron met in London to discuss security and rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan. Karzai then took another rout by wedging his spear between the alliance’s [U.S and British] military operations; selling his discomfort with Petraeus’ counterinsurgency plan to the British. In light of that, the U.K. MP then tarnished the U.S. military campaign by saying,” Counterinsurgency measures in Afghanistan are not working and could be counterproductive unless the U.S. and its allies start peace talks with the Taliban.”

That said, the U.S. Marines takeover of Helmand operations from the British in July 2010 was the beginning of the end of the British mission in the province. However, reports suggest that the British were not really able to hold on to the two dangerous districts of Sangin and Kajaki, while scores of the Royal Marines were killed in their failed effort. The controversial handover created some animosity between the two coalition’s military contingents. And, the U.K. MPs’ resentment towards counterinsurgency was also in concurrence with Mr. Karzai’s bitterness towards the U.S. military campaign. Then the MPs went on to say, “There is a danger that without appropriate political leadership, the current military campaign is in danger of inadvertently derailing efforts to secure a political solution to what is essentially a political problem.” Therefore, his London meeting was a mission accomplished for Mr. Karzai to win the British favor against the counterinsurgency doctrine.

Despite U.S. and NATO’s optimistic assessments of the war progress in Kandahar and Helmand, it is hard to judge whether their operations really have the Taliban on the run or whether it’s just the winter that has brought calm. In fact, the brain trust at NWSC asses from past exploits in Afghanistan—the Russian occupation—that it is too early to declare mission accomplished. In either case, the upcoming months will be a litmus test for General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency doctrine.

The NATO air strike that recently killed the nine boys collecting wood in the hills of Asad-Abad, Kunar province in Eastern Afghanistan have unleashed public fury at a crucial time for foreign forces in Afghanistan. Subsequently the rejection of Petraeus’ rare public apology by Hamid Karzai, saying, “Civilian casualties were no longer acceptable,” was a sign of the deteriorating relationship between them.

Afterwards, there even came a call from the Afghan President for ceasing the entire NATO operations in Afghanistan that Karzai’s spokesperson had to later issue a clarification on, saying, “President Karzai was referring only to specific operations that had caused civilian casualties.”
Additionally, the U.S. troop killing of Karzai’s cousin in Kandahar brought claims of a deep conspiracy that Karzai’s brother Mahmood Karzai feared maybe U.S. Special Forces had acted on false information, possibly given as part of a 30-year family blood feud. Also, Karzai’s younger brother Anas Karzai, who lives in Toronto, dismisses the findings by the U.S. that his uncle was an immediate threat to the security forces and is asking the Canadian military to conduct its own investigation into the raid.

This all raises the question as to why so many furies have surfaced at once, and what are the motives behind all these unexpected and conflicting circumstances? Is it a game of politicization for public sympathy to justify the anger towards the loss of a blood family member at the hands of the U.S.?
Meanwhile, an unannounced visit of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates—at a time of increased strain between Kabul and Washington—was more of a soothing mission rather than security transition milestone. Robert Gates assured Karzai regarding the presence of U.S. troops, who will remain beyond 2014, which may not help Mr. Karzai’s reconciliation effort with the Taliban; on the contrary, Mr. Karzai cannot refute secretary Gates’ confirmation of U.S. troops staying longer in Afghanistan.

Indeed, Mr. Karzai’s tantrum against the U.S. operations killing innocent civilians is loud and clear, but his government‘s reluctance to protect the Afghan populace is also obvious when scores of innocent people are being killed by the Taliban. This year their assassinations have increased by an additional 15 percent. In fact, there were seven Taliban strikes killing some 400 Afghans, and many of whom were non-combatants. Ironically, the handover of security to the Afghan government that is to begin in July and completed by 2014, is a pipedream because there are no viable security preparations or precautions planned by the Afghan government to protect the population; and there is doubt that they can even step up to the plate.

Also, another outburst by Mr. Karzai,—because of some corruption criticism of his government by the White house—to kick out private national and international security contractors and phase out their operations in favor of Afghan security forces was an ill-thought plan profoundly undermining Obama administration’s new Afghanistan strategy, but Karzai had to back down later on because the reality is that his government forces are not prepared to handle that responsibility.

Recently British Special Forces in Afghanistan seized a convoy of powerful Iranian rockets destined for Taliban fighters, and it was confirmed as a significant and strong indication of Iranian support for the insurgency, yet the Afghan government remains in denial, saying that no such evidence exists and the two countries have constructive cooperation to fight against terrorism, drugs and organized crime.

In another occurrence, U.S. Army Colonel David Flynn had to level and destroy homes and villages to oblivion and nothingness in the Zhari, Panjwaii, and Khosrow districts of Kandahar province; all because they were embedded with Improvised Explosive Devices (IED). He had to destroy the houses to make the districts safe per Mr. Flynn’s words. But the house demolitions did apparently affected many thousands of people, making them angry because now their homes are gone and they face cold weather and lack of basic necessities. This was believed to be just to force people to go to the district governor’s office to submit their claims for damaged property and to rebuild their homes from ground up, in effect, connecting the corrupt and deeply unpopular government of Hamid Karzai to the people. But that connection is certain to be marked by bitterness. A tribal elder dismissed the offer of compensation for houses destroyed as “just kicking dirt in our eyes.” It also corresponds to an Afghan proverb, “You can take an Afghan to hell with kindness, but not to heaven by force.”

The list goes on and on for all the failures that Afghanistan has endured including, needless to say, the theatrically corrupt government of Afghanistan. In the same token, the U.S. army “Psy-Ops” operation that was mounted against U.S. senators and other visiting dignitaries in order to win support for more funding, as expressed by Lt. Gen William Caldwell, “How do we get these guys to give us more people?……..What do I have to plant inside their heads?” will not win the war in Afghanistan. In fact, at this crucial and pivotal moment, in its 10th grinding year, with no viable plan on the table that can win the war, there is only a political solution to this quagmire and an indigenous one at that, for an “Afghanistan National Reconciliation” and not a “Karzai-Taliban Reconciliation.”

By Khalil Nouri STAFF WRITER / EDITOR

Khalil Nouri is the cofounder of New World Strategies Coalition Inc www.nwscinc.org , a native think tank for a nonmilitary solution studies for Afghanistan, and a member of Afghanistan Study Groupwww.afghanistanstudygroup.org

The 16th Martyrdom anniversary of shaheed ustad Abdulali Mazari

It has been unanimously decided that all the Hazaras of the UK with collaboration of Hazara International Forum of Great Britain shall commemorate the 16th Martyrdom Anniversary of Shaheed Ustad Abdul Ali Mazari jointly in London. The details of the Programme are as follows:

Name of the Event: 16th Martyrdom Anniversary of Shaheed Ustad Abdul Ali Mazari

Date: 13/03/2011

Time: 1:00 – 17:00 hours

Venue: Walthamstow Assembly Hall,
Forest Road,
Walthamstow.
E17 4JA

R.S.V.P 07746 872 535 or hazarainternationalforum@gmail.com

Secretary,
Press and Communications,
Hazara International Forum of Great Britain

the eponymous strongman of a Ḡozz clan, whose nephew Toḡrel founded the Saljuq dynasty.

MUSĀ YABḠU (Bayḡu in some sources), the son of Saljuq Sü-bašï [Sobāši], the eponymous strongman of a Ḡozz (q.v.) clan, whose nephew Toḡrel founded the Saljuq dynasty. It is debated whether his second name is pronounced “yabḡu” (an old Turk. title) or “payḡu” (bïgu, baygu, paygu:a bird of prey). There is no information in the sources regarding initial periods of his life. He succeeded to the leadership of the Saljuqs in Transoxania as the most senior member of the family following the capture of his elder brother Arslan Esrāʾil Yabḡu (1025), by Sultan Maḥmud of Ghazna (r. 998-1030; Ebn al-Aṯir, IX, pp. 475-76; Rāvandi, pp. 87-92).

After the immigration of the Saljuqs to Khorasan in 1035, the battles with the Ghaznavids (q.v.) caused the brothers Toḡrel and Čaḡri (q.v.), who were the most active members of the clan, to strengthen their position and become as powerful as their uncle Musā Yabḡu. According to Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqi (q.v., d. 1077; ed. Fayyāż, p. 641), one of the envoys sent to Sultan Masʿud I (r. 1031–41) after the first victory of the Saljuqs against the Ghaznavids on 29 June 1035, was representing Musā Yabḡu. The second Saljuq victory against the Ghaznavids on 1 June 1038 caused the rapid advance of Toḡrel Beg within the clan. In the sharing of the spoils after the victory, Toḡrel Beg took Nišāpur, his brother Čaḡri Beg took Marv, and Musā Yabḡu the town of Saraḵs. After the victory of Dandānaqān (q.v.) in 1040, Musā Yabḡu received Herat, Esfezār, Bušanj, Sistān, and Bost (qq.v.). Shortly afterwards, Musā Yabḡu seized Herat with about 5,000 cavalry and then ruled the region of Sistān with the aid of his nephew Ertaš (Ertāš; Tāriḵ-e Sistān, pp. 365-66). Abu’l-Fażl, the regional ruler, offered his allegiance to the Saljuqs. Musā Yabḡu, who established a semi-independent government in South Khorasan and Sistān, made the town of Herat the center of his administration. Although Sistān was seized by the Ghaznavid ḥājeb (q.v.), Toḡrel, in 1051, it was taken back by Musā Yabḡu after Toḡrel’s return to Ghazna (see ḠAZNI; Tāriḵ-e Sistān, pp. 371-72)

The real threat to the sovereignty of Musā Yabḡu was not, however, from the Ghaznavids, but from within the dynasty itself. He encountered interference in Sistān first from Ertaš, the brother of Ebrāhim Yenāl, in 1041 and then from Yāquti, the son of Čaḡri Beg in 1054-55. The most dangerous threat, however, was posed by Čaḡri Beg himself, who entered the city in 1056 and had the Friday prayer sermon (ḵoṭba) delivered in his name. Musā Yabḡu appealed to Toḡrel Beg, who reproached Čaḡri Beg severely and sent the letter of appointment confirming Yabḡu as governor of Sistān and, besides, authorizing him to mint coins and have Friday prayer sermons delivered in his own name (Tāriḵ-e Sistān, pp. 374-81). Coins minted in the name of Musā Yabḡu in Herat in the years 435/1043-44, 439/1047-48, 443/1051-52, 446/1054-55 and in Sistān in 443/1052-53 have survived to the present day (see Album, bibliography).

The struggle between the line of Musā Yabḡu and Čaḡri Beg of the Saljuq dynasty was continuing at that time. A coin minted in the name of Čaḡri Beg and his son Alp Arslan (q.v., r. 1063-72) in the year 450/1058-59 in Herat shows that the area ruled by Musā Yabḡu was reduced at that time (Sourdel, p. 214). It seems that the political rule of the line of Musā Yabḡu came to an end in 1064 at the beginning of Alp Arslan’s bid for sovereignty. There is no information available about the last years of Musā Yabḡu or his death.

Musā Yabḡu, referred to as Yabḡu-ye Kalān and Inanč/Inānč Beg, used the titles and sobriquets Faḵr-al-Molk, Moʿezz-al-Dawla, Faḵr-al-Mella, al-Malek al-ʿĀdel, and Nā ṣer-al-Din. The names of his sons Yusof, Abu ʿAli Ḥasan and Qara Arslan Böri/Buri were also mentioned in the literature of the period. Abu’l-Ḥasan Bayhaqi (p. 71), however, refers to ʿOmar, Abu Bakr, Böri, and Dawlatšāh as the sons of Musā Yabḡu. The Dawlatšāh mentioned by Bayhaqi must be the same Dawlatšāh who rebelled in Ṭoḵārestān in 1098 during the reign of Sultan Barkiāroq (q.v., r. 1092-1105) and was captured and imprisoned by Sanjar, the ruler of the eastern Saljuq Empire, who eventually blinded him (Ebn-al-Atir, X, p. 279). Dawlatšāh is the last known member of the Musā Yabḡu line.

Bibliography: Numismatic materials. Coşkun Alptekin, “Selçuklu paraları,”Selçuklu araştırmaları dergisi 3, 1971, pp. 435-591. T. Khodzhaniyazov, Denejnoe obrashcheniye v gosudarstve velikih Sel’dzukov (po dannım numizmatiki) (The circulation of money in the Great Saljuq state, according to numismatic data), Ashkhabad, 1977, pp. 3, 39. Idem, Katalog monet gosudarstva Velikikh Sel’dzhukov (Catalogue of coins in the Great Saljuq state), Ashkhabad, 1979, pp. 20, n. 73, 148-49, ns. 2-3. Osman G. Özgüdenli, “Yeni paraların ışığında kuruluş devri Selçuklularında hâkimiyet münasebetleri hakkında bazı düşünceler,” Türk Tarih Kurumu belleten 65/243, 2002, pp. 547-70. Dominique Sourdel, “Un trésor de dinars ghaznawides et salğuqides découvert en Afghanistan,” Bulletin d’études orientales de l’Institut Français de Damas 18, 1963-64, pp. 197-219. Stephen Album, Price List, 70, November 1990, p. 2 no. 20; 75, May 1991, p. 2 no. 66; 88, July 1992, p. 1, no. 25; 105, March 1994, p. 1, no. 33; 127, July 1996), p. 2 no. 34; 138, August 1997, p. 1 no. 22; 146, May 1998, p. 2 no. 32; 150, January 1999, p. 2 no. 34.

Primary sources. Bayhaqi, ed. Fayyāż, 3rd ed., Mashad, 1996, pp. 611-12, 641, 695, 728, 730-31, 755, 761, 833, 841, 844. Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAli b. Zayd Bayhaqi (Ebn Fondoq), Tāriḵ-e Bayhaq, ed. Aḥmad Bahmanyār, 2nd ed., Tehran, n. d., pp. 71-72, 373. Ebn-al-Atir (Beirut), IX, pp. 459-60, 474, 478, 481, 483-84. Gardizi, ed. Ḥabibi; repr. Tehran, 1984, p. 435. Ṣadr-al-Din Ḥosayni, Aḵbār al-dawlat al-saljuqiya, Turk. tr. Necati Lügal as Ahbâr üd-devlet is-selçukiyye, Ankara, 1943, pp. 2–12. Mirḵᵛānd (Tehran), IV, pp. 237, 242-43, 246. Moḥammad b. ʿAli Rāvandi, Rāḥat al-ṣodur wa āyat al-sorur dar tāriḵ-e Āl-e Saljuq, ed. Moḥammad Eqbāl, rev. ed., Mojtabā Minovi, Tehran, 1985, pp. 87-88, 102-4. Tāriḵ-e gozida, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1985, pp. 426-29. Tāriḵ-e Sistān, ed. Malek-al-Šoʿarāʾ Bahār, Tehran, 1987, pp. 365-82.

Secondary sources. Sergei Grigorevich Agadzhanov, Gosudarstvo Seldzhukidov i Sredniaya Aziya v XI-XII, Ger. tr. Reinold Schletzeras Der Staat der Seldschukiden und Mittelasien im 11.-12. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1994, pp. 86, 88, 90-93. Idem,Oğuzlar, Turk. tr. Ekber N. Necef and Ahmed Annaberdiyev, Istanbul, 2002, pp. 207-10, 292, 314. Clifford E. Bosworth, “Payghū,” in EI2 VIII, p. 288. Idem, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and Malik of Nimruz 247/861-949/1542-43, Costa Mesa, Calif., and New York, 1994, p. 377-85. İbrahim Kafesoğlu, “Selçuk’un oğulları ve torunları,” Türkiyat mecmuası 13, 1958, pp. 117-30. Idem, “Selçuklular,” in İA X, pp. 353-416. Mehmet Altay Köymen, Tuğrul Bey ve zamanı, Istanbul, 1976, pp. 4-5, 9-17, 19, 55-56. Idem, Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu tarihiI: Kuruluş devri, Ankara, 1979, pp. 33, 128-29, 225-27. Osman G. Özgüdenli, “Ülüş sisteminden merkezî devlete: Selçuklu devlet telâkkisinin teşekkülü (1038-1064),” in Hasan Celâl Güzel, Kemal Çiçek, and Selim Koca, eds., Türkler V, Ankara, 2002, pp. 249-64. E. Denison Ross, Kuş isimlerinin Doğu Türkçesi, Mançuca ve Çince sözlüğü, Turk. tr. Emine Gürsoy-Naskali, Ankara, 1994, p. VII. Osman Turan,Selçuklular tarihi ve Türk İslâm medeniyeti, 5th ed., Istanbul, 1996, pp. 57-61, 86-87, 94-100, 104-10, 121, 127-29, 150, 158-59.

Osman G. Özgüdenli

Musā Yabḡu in Turkish…

Turkic Personality Page…

The celebration of 570th birth anniversary of the biggest Turkic Uzbek Poet, Politician and human rights Defender Nizamuddin Amir Ali Sher NAWAYE .

From : Afghanistan Students Located in Istanbul –TURKEY

Date: 28th February 2011

Time: 18:00 – 20:00

Place: Kazlichashma Cultural Center

Add: Kazlichashma Locale – Abay Avenue .No : 165 Zeytinburnu – Istanbul TURKEY

Know, all humankind: The greatest curse is enmity; the greatest blessing – amity.

Mind, ye peoples of the Earth, Enmity is an evil state.

Live in friendship, one and all – Man can have no kinder fate

He, who knows knowledge but applies not,

is like those who plow the land and, seeds plant not.

( Ali Sher NAVAYI )

M. Ömer Faryabi

Afghan lawmakers Sunday made it to elect head of the Afghan House of Representatives.

Abdul Rauf Ibrahimi, (Uzbek Turks ethnic group) a fellow candidate from South Turkistan (northern Afghanistan)  Kunduz province, swept majority of votes in the parliament and won house speaker seat after more than a month of stalemate in the house.

Hours after Mr Ibrahimi won the seat; President Karzai’s Offices in a statement congratulated him for his new position.

Mr Ibrahimi sweeping 169 votes in the parliament could make it up to 50+1.

Around 173 parliamentarians were taking part in Saturday’s vote which was held transparently.

Parliament stalemate on house speaker lasted for more than a month ended after Mr Ibrahimi was elected to fill the seat.

The newly elected house speaker pledged to protect Afghan national interests in the best way possible.

“I really appreciate that you have trusted me to hold this crucial seat,” he said.

“I want to offer my deepest congratulations on winning the votes and confidence of parliamentarians,” said Mohammad Yunus Qanuni, former head of the parliament.

Mr Ibrahimi said next day the parliament will vote for deputy house speakers and secretaries.

Review

“Vogelsang … has produced a valuable overview of Afghan history and archaeology…[his] book reminds readers that Afghanistan’s rich history and culture warrant far more attention than merely as a refuge for ‘evil-doers,’ and that its people deserve the interest and support of the West even when globalized conflicts are at stake.” Choice

Product Description

In the 1960s and 70s Afghanistan was depicted in the media as the romantic haven of nomads and a resort for hashish-smoking hippies; in the 80s it was seen as a country where brave warriors fought against the ‘evil’ Soviet empire, and in the 90s redrawn as a semi-feudal land ruled by warlords and Islamic fundamentalists. In September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States thrust the country to the fore of international politics. The Afghans brings together these different outside perspectives to form one coherent story, telling the dramatic history of the land and peoples of Afghanistan from prehistoric times to the present day.

The book discusses a wide variety of subjects including the Indo-Iranian invasions of the second millennium BC, the Persian Achaemenids, Alexander the Great, the Islamic conquest, the Mongols and the rise of the kingdom of Afghanistan in the eighteenth century. The author pays special attention to recent developments, including the Soviet occupation of the country and subsequent events. Much of the description of the contemporary period is based on the author’s own experience of events. The history also draws on a wide variety of other sources, including archaeological, historical and linguistic materials.

Google Book >>>

تاریخ قدیم اقوام و سرزمین های افغانستان امروزی تا ظهور سلطنت افغان ها

ادامه نوشته » PDF

Editorial Reviews

Review

“Vogelsang … has produced a valuable overview of Afghan history and archaeology…[his] book reminds readers that Afghanistan’s rich history and culture warrant far more attention than merely as a refuge for ‘evil-doers,’ and that its people deserve the interest and support of the West even when globalized conflicts are at stake.” Choice

Product Description

In the 1960s and 70s Afghanistan was depicted in the media as the romantic haven of nomads and a resort for hashish-smoking hippies; in the 80s it was seen as a country where brave warriors fought against the ‘evil’ Soviet empire, and in the 90s redrawn as a semi-feudal land ruled by warlords and Islamic fundamentalists. In September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States thrust the country to the fore of international politics. The Afghans brings together these different outside perspectives to form one coherent story, telling the dramatic history of the land and peoples of Afghanistan from prehistoric times to the present day.

The book discusses a wide variety of subjects including the Indo-Iranian invasions of the second millennium BC, the Persian Achaemenids, Alexander the Great, the Islamic conquest, the Mongols and the rise of the kingdom of Afghanistan in the eighteenth century. The author pays special attention to recent developments, including the Soviet occupation of the country and subsequent events. Much of the description of the contemporary period is based on the author’s own experience of events. The history also draws on a wide variety of other sources, including archaeological, historical and linguistic materials.

Book Description

Discusses a wide variety of subjects, including the Indo-Iranian invasions of the second millennium B.C., the Persian Achaemenids, Alexander the Great, the Islamic conquest, the Mongols & the rise of the kingdom of Afghanistan in the eighteenth century.

From the Back Cover

In the 1960s and 70s Afghanistan was depicted in the media as the romantic haven of nomads and a resort for hashish-smoking hippies; in the 80s it was seen as a country where brave warriors fought against the ‘evil’ Soviet empire, and in the 90s redrawn as a semi-feudal land ruled by warlords and Islamic fundamentalists. In September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States thrust the country to the fore of international politics. Afghanistan was regarded as a country liberated from an oppressive terrorist regime, and eagerly embracing democracy. Right now, however, it is a country often seen again as a political and military quagmire. The Afghans brings together these different outside perspectives to form one coherent story, telling the dramatic history of the land and peoples of Afghanistan from prehistoric times to the present day.

The book discusses a wide variety of subjects including the Indo-Iranian invasions of the second millennium BC, the Persian Achaemenids, Alexander the Great, the Islamic conquest, the Mongols and the rise of the kingdom of Afghanistan in the eighteenth century. The author pays special attention to more recent developments, including the Soviet occupation of the country and Taliban rule.

For this updated paperback edition, the author has provided a new final chapter covering developments since 2001, including the fall of the Taliban, state building and foreign intervention in the region. The bibliography has also been updated.

About the Author

Willem Vogelsang studied ancient Indian and Iranian languages and cultures at Leiden university in The Netherlands. He is currently Executive Secretary of the Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies at Leiden University. He has worked at various excavations in Syria and Afghanistan, and in 1982 travelled throughout Afghanistan as a freelance journalist reporting on the Soviet occupation. He has published widely on the ancient history and archaeology of Afghanistan and Iran. One of his major publications is The Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid Empire (1992). Willem Vogelsang is also co-editor of the annual journal Persica, and together with his wife directs a research programme about dress and identity on the Iranian plateau.