# Pashtuns got 'Khan' title from Turk Sultans of Delhi , not Mongols



## Samandri

1- Some people assume that when Mongols devastated Afghanistan in 13th century ¸ Pashtuns must have borrowed from them at that occasion. Why would Mongol conquerors bestow their royal title to them?. Also People should keep in mind that Mongols devastated central and northern Afghanistan which was populated by Persians/Tajiks, much of the present day Afghanistan was not inhabited by Pashtuns/Afghans at that time. Pashtuns at that time were confined to Koh Sulieman range and Koh Sufaid range of Hindu Kush as evident from statements of Alberuni of 11th century and Ibn-e-batuta of 14th century. These mountain ranges were natural barriers/forts , and protected Pashtun tribes from Mongols who were unstoppable on plains. Mongol themselves avoided sending armies in to these mountains. Pashtuns didn’t integrate into Mongol empire and were hostile to them. When Jalaludin Khwarzimi came to Ghazni to assemble a Turkish force , he also invited Afghan/Pashtun tribes from the hills to join his forces , which swelled his army to 60,000. This Turk-Afghan force was the first to inflict first ever defeat on Mongols in 1221 AD at Parwan. After victory, Afghan tribesmen quarreled with Turkish soldiers over spoils of war and deserted Jalaludin. But they kept raiding Mongol garrisons in subsequent years.



2- Due to ferocity and reputation of the Pashtun tribes on Mongol empire’s frontier with India, Turk sultans began to employ them in large numbers and all the forts along Mongol frontier were garrisoned with Afghans as a defense strategy. Earlier Iltumish had used Afghans to counteract rebellious Turkish nobility. The Afghan/Pashtun soldiers of Slave dynasty and Khilji dynasty , on the front lines played an important role in repulsing Mongol invasions of India. Most of the soldiers of Turkish slave dynasty consisted of Khiljis and Afghans. With the ascendancy of Turko-Afghan Khiljis to throne, Pashtuns began to find place in the nobility. For example Malik Inkhtiya-uddin Yal Afghan was a notable Pashtun noble of Khilji empire. Tughlaq also patronized Pashtuns and large number of Pashtuns, along with Mongols, were appointed “sadah” amirs i.e chief of hundred villages. At the time of invasion of Amir timur , the Tuglaq empire was practically controlled by two Afghan brothers Malik Iqbal Khan and Sarang Khan, sons of Zafar Khan Lodhi. After death of last Tughlaq ruler Nasir-ud-din, the nobility of the Tughlaqs appointed Daulat Khan Lodhi , the sipah-e-salar of army, as new Sultan in 1412 who sat on throne for two years and then was defeated and killed by Khizr Khan who founded Sayyid dynasty.


3- Lodis were involved in Indian affairs from very early on . Malik Mahmud Lodi is said to have accompanied Mahmud Ghaznavi in the campaign of Somnat. We hear of Malik Shahu Lodi, the deputy governor of Multan, in the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq , who gathered his Afghans followers and killed governor of Multan. Malik Bahram Lodi, grandfather of Bahlul Lodi, was serving governor of Multan with a contingent of his tribesmen in the reign of Feroz Shah Tughlaq. The Lodhis who seized Delhi throne in 1451 were not strange and new comers to India, they were active in India since times of Slave dynasty. They received Khan titles from their Turkish predecessors and continued to use it when they themselves became Sultans. The real Khan i.e Mughal Emperor Babur had to say that no one deserves Khan title batter than Afghan (it is said that six thousands soldiers in his army during panipat campaign were Afghans , notably of Zamand and Kheshgi tribes). Afghans remained important part of Mughal nobility and soldiery but Khan title was not exclusive to them, it was a Mughal title.


With the decline of Mughal empire in 18th century, Pashtuns/Afghans settled in U.P, Malwa and Gujrat and seized territories there. Due to dominance of Pashtuns/Afghans in 18th century Northern India, the prominent Khans roaming around were mostly Pashtuns and that’s why some how Khan became synonymous to Pathan among Indians. 

Ghakkars, Janjuas, Awans, Balochs, muslim Rajputs etc have not borrowed Khan title from Pashtuns……..It was either bestowed on them by either old Turki dynasties of Delhi or by Mughals. Khizr Khan was a Sayyid but he was using Khan title. Khusrao Khan was a convert from Hinduism but he was given Khan name by Khiljis. 

I doubt that Turk Sultans of Delhi would copy Khan title from Mongols. The younger brother of Balban was named ‘Kishlu Khan’. The most celebrated general of Khilji who destroyed Mongol armies, was zafar Khan.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Kompromat

You seriously want to answer those who have a 1000 years of self loathing history to hate?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Tiger Genie

wherever they got the name from....it means nothing now. Most pathans in India are either small time money lenders or watchmen competing with gurkas. A few have made it big in bollywood

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## luoshan

*Khan*, *Kahn* (Mongolian: хан/khan; Turkish: _kağan_ or _hakan_; Azerbaijani: _xan_; Ottoman: _han_; Old Turkic: , _kaɣan_; Chinese: 可汗, _kèhán_; Goguryeo : 皆, _key_; Silla: 干, _kan_;Baekje: 瑕, _ke_; Manchu: ᡥᠠᠨ, Pashto: خان Urdu: خان‎, Balochi: خان Hindi: ख़ान; Nepali: खाँ Bengali: খ়ান; Bulgarian: хан,[1] Chuvash: хун, _hun_) is an originally Mongol and subsequentlyCentral Asian title for a sovereign or military ruler, widely used by medieval nomadic Mongol tribes living to the north of China. "Khan" is also seen as a title in the MongolicXianbei confederation for their chief between 283 and 289.The Rourans were the first people who used the titles khagan and khan for their emperors, replacing the Chanyuof the Xiongnu, whom Grousset and others assume to be Turkic. It was subsequently adopted by the Ashina before Mongols brought it to the rest of Asia. In the middle of the sixth century it was known as "Kagan – King of the Turks" to the Iranians.

It now has many equivalent meanings such as commander, leader, or ruler. Presently khans exist in South Asia, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Turkey. The female alternatives are Khatun and Khanum. These titles or names are sometimes written as _Han_, _Kan_, _Hakan_, _Hanum_, or _Hatun_ (in Turkey) and "xan", "xanım" (in Azerbaijan). Various Mongolic and Turkic peoples from Central Asia had given the title new prominence after the Mongol rule throughout the Old World and later brought the title "khan" into Northern Asia, which later was adopted by locals in the country as a title. Khagan is rendered as _Khan of Khans_. It was the title of Chinese Emperor Taizong of Tang (_Heavenly Khagan_), also was the title of Genghis Khan and the persons who are elected to rule the Mongol Empire. For instance Möngke Khan and Ogedei Khan would be "Khagans" but not Chagatai Khan who was not proclaimed ruler of the Mongol Empire by the kurultai.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Samandri said:


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


there is no such thing as pashtun its pathan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Tiger Genie said:


> wherever they got the name from....it means nothing now. Most pathans in India are either small time money lenders or watchmen competing with gurkas. A few have made it big in bollywood



Most pathans in India are fake, high caste rajputs and brahmins converts started to claim being pathans.

In bollywood Amir, Salman and Saif are real pathan decendents. Sharukh is fake pathan, he is proud of his father side being pathan but they were awans actually with khan last name. His cousin in Pakistan was surprised why he claim to be pathan. His mother is south indian. Dilip is another fake pathan, but I am not sure if he claim it or not. He was awan also.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Desert Fox

Umair Nawaz said:


> there is no such thing as pashtun its pathan.


Its Pashtun, not Pathan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Lucid Thoughts

save_ghenda said:


> Most pathans in India are fake, high caste rajputs and brahmins converts started to claim being pathans.
> 
> In bollywood Amir, Salman and Saif are real pathan decendents. Sharukh is fake pathan, he is proud of his father side being pathan but they were awans actually with khan last name. His cousin in Pakistan was surprised why he claim to be pathan. His mother is south indian. Dilip is another fake pathan, but I am not sure if he claim it or not. He was awan also.



Why would anyone want to be pathan I don't get it?


----------



## ghoul

save_ghenda said:


> Most pathans in India are fake, high caste rajputs and brahmins converts started to claim being pathans.
> 
> In bollywood Amir, Salman and Saif are real pathan decendents. Sharukh is fake pathan, he is proud of his father side being pathan but they were awans actually with khan last name. His cousin in Pakistan was surprised why he claim to be pathan. His mother is south indian. Dilip is another fake pathan, but I am not sure if he claim it or not. He was awan also.



Yaar to Indians, everyone in Hazara, Peshawar etc etc is a "Pathan". In a book by an Indian author, he was calling a Malik Awan of Shamsabad a "Pathan". Heck even hindu Khatris from Afghanistan, Peshawar etc are called "Pathans" by Indians now. Anil Kapoor also calls himself a pathan now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Samandri

*Mongol-Afghan Conflict during the Delhi Sultans.pdf*


----------



## Kabira

ghoul said:


> Yaar to Indians, everyone in Hazara, Peshawar etc etc is a "Pathan". In a book by an Indian author, he was calling a Malik Awan of Shamsabad a "Pathan". Heck even hindu Khatris from Afghanistan, Peshawar etc are called "Pathans" by Indians now. Anil Kapoor also calls himself a pathan now.



Well that is completely different matter. But it get interesting when all these people claim to be pathan just because of location and wikipedias. Remind me of low caste people in rural areas adopting bhatti, khokhar, gill etc surnames.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Samandri

Lucid Thoughts said:


> Why would anyone want to be pathan I don't get it?


Because your ancestors were terrified of 'Pathans' and the newly converts , mostly from subjugated low castes, found the 'Pathan' identity very attractive to assume. Not just Pathan, converts also assumed Syed identity to boast of religious nasab superiority over others. Some contended on assuming Qureshi identity. With introduction of prestigious and splendid Mughal rule in India, many assumed Mughal identity to count themselves as ruling class. 

Also for some reason every one coming from central asia and Afghanistan to India was assumed as Pathans by Hindus. Even Balochs in U.P were called Pathans. We also hear the terms in India like Ghori Pathans, Tughlaq Pathans, Mughal Pathans etc........even today for Karachiites, any one from northren areas is Pathan whether he/she is from Hazara, Chitral-gilgat, Kohistan, DI Khan etc...Any one from Afghanistan is assumed as Pathan by Indians. Kashmiris would often tell you that they are mistaken as Pathans by others.

The term 'Pathan' has been invented and bastardized by indians, put the word in google search and either Irfan pathan turns up or some stupid racist jokes. "Pathan" is joke today, Pashtun/Afghan is not.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## WAR-rior

Horus said:


> You seriously want to answer those who have a 1000 years of self loathing history to hate?


Dont know bout 1000 years for mainland India especially below Central India, but current region of Pakistan indeed was ruled for 1000 years by the invaders and ur ancestors where the victims. Thats a well accepted FACT even within ur country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Samandri said:


> Because your ancestors were terrified of 'Pathans' and the newly converts , mostly from subjugated low castes, found the 'Pathan' identity very attractive to assume. Not just Pathan, converts also assumed Syed identity to boast of religious nasab superiority over others. Some contended on assuming Qureshi identity. With introduction of prestigious and splendid Mughal rule in India, many assumed Mughal identity to count themselves as ruling class.
> 
> Also for some reason every one coming from central asia and Afghanistan to India was assumed as Pathans by Hindus. Even Balochs in U.P were called Pathans. We also hear the terms in India like Ghori Pathans, Tughlaq Pathans, Mughal Pathans etc........even today for Karachiites, any one from northren areas is Pathan whether he/she is from Hazara, Chitral-gilgat, Kohistan, DI Khan etc...Any one from Afghanistan is assumed as Pathan by Indians. Kashmiris would often tell you that they are mistaken as Pathans by others.
> 
> The term 'Pathan' has been invented and bastardized by indians, put the word in google search and either Irfan pathan turns up or some stupid racist jokes. "Pathan" is joke today, Pashtun/Afghan is not.



Not low castes but high caste converts adopted pathan etc identity and were asharaf muslims, while low castes were ajlaf.


----------



## ghoul

save_ghenda said:


> Well that is completely different matter. But it get interesting when all these people claim to be pathan just because of location and wikipedias. Remind me of low caste people in rural areas adopting bhatti, khokhar, gill etc surnames.



It's funny that a lot of macheras and mussalis are Khokhars now, and take pride of characters like Sirkap etc. We're made to believe that the ferocious Khokhars of medieval era transformed into docile men, unfit for fighting. I believe only Jhang and Pind Dadan Khan regions have true Khokhars left who claim a rajput descent and are actually land owners + fighters. 

The Kot of Kamalia - Blogs - DAWN.COM

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Samandri

save_ghenda said:


> Not low castes but high caste converts adopted pathan etc identity and were asharaf muslims, while low castes were ajlaf.


I dont understand why Rajputs needed to assume Pathan identity after conversion to Islam when the concept of Muslim Rajput exists e.g those of Mewat. It seems to me Rajputs attached Khan surname after accepting Islam , as it was customary for muslim nobles in India and ignorant people of later generations started calling them Pathans due to Khan name.

Converts from Low castes, were more keen to assume identity of the ruling muslim class.......Those who didnt assumed fake identities and kept their ancestral professions, were called ajlafs. Basically ajlafs are genuine people, while most of the ashrafs in India are fake.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

Samandri said:


> I dont understand why Rajputs needed to assume Pathan identity after conversion to Islam when the concept of Muslim Rajput exists e.g those of Mewat. It seems to me Rajputs attached Khan surname after accepting Islam , as it was customary for muslim nobles in India and ignorant people of later generations started calling them Pathans due to Khan name.
> 
> Converts from Low castes, were more keen to assume identity of the ruling muslim class.......Those who didnt assumed fake identities and kept their ancestral professions, were called ajlafs. Basically ajlafs are genuine people, while most of the ashrafs in India are fake.



But they did, probably to still differentiate between low caste and high caste. Its well known fact by other hindu rajputs. Any brahman/rajput in gangetic plains who converted went by name of pathan. Thats why a part from ashraf-ajlaf thing. There was also different category of pathans. Nasli and divani pathans. Nasli mean by birth and divani mean rajpit/brahman converts.


Pathans in Bihar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be honest many people in punjab also claim fake ancestry, baig, mughals, arabs, or some claim to have came with Ghazni etc only certain tribes do not claim foreign ancestry despite converting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desert Fox

WAR-rior said:


> Dont know bout 1000 years for mainland India especially below Central India, but current region of Pakistan indeed was ruled for 1000 years by the invaders and ur ancestors where the victims. Thats a well accepted FACT even within ur country.


Hmm, are you sure present day india, who's capital Delhi, which ironically was the capital of successive Muslim conquerors/empires, was never ruled by Islamic dynasties for centuries?

*Tughlaq Dynasty:*








*Mughal Empire:*







*Suri Dynasty*











Everytime you bharatis claim you were never conquered and ruled by Muslim conquerors
one only has to counter such drivel with a picture of the Taj Mahal :

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## IrbiS

@GURU DUTT it's about time you read something beyond wikipedia. He was super excited other day to know that we borrowed surname from Chengez ( Mongols ) after they devastated the region


----------



## Kabira

ghoul said:


> It's funny that a lot of macheras and mussalis are Khokhars now, and take pride of characters like Sirkap etc. We're made to believe that the ferocious Khokhars of medieval era transformed into docile men, unfit for fighting. I believe only Jhang and Pind Dadan Khan regions have true Khokhars left who claim a rajput descent and are actually land owners + fighters.
> 
> The Kot of Kamalia - Blogs - DAWN.COM



Khokhars near Chenab river villages from where Sheikha Khokhar and Jasrath khokhar hailed are also real.


----------



## Samandri

save_ghenda said:


> Khokhars near Chenab river villages from where Sheikha Khokhar and Jasrath khokhar hailed are also real.


I dont understand where the Khokars, who were very powerful in medieval times and appear to be numerous, have disappeared to?......I do not hear much about Khokars in the history after Jasrath. Any idea why they lost power and what is their history during reign of Mughals?
@ghoul


----------



## WAR-rior

Desert Fox said:


> Hmm, are you sure present day india, who's capital Delhi, which ironically was the capital of successive Muslim conquerors/empires, was never ruled by Islamic dynasties for centuries?
> 
> *Tughlaq Dynasty:*
> 
> View attachment 224176
> 
> 
> 
> *Mughal Empire:*
> 
> View attachment 224177
> 
> 
> 
> *Suri Dynasty*
> 
> View attachment 224173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime you bharatis claim you were never conquered and ruled by Muslim conquerors
> one only has to counter such drivel with a picture of the Taj Mahal :
> 
> View attachment 224178​


Tughlaq and Mughals. calculate the total years and tell us. Hope along with lack of higher education in Pak, Maths is atleast existent.


----------



## Desert Fox

WAR-rior said:


> Tughlaq and Mughals. calculate the total years and tell us. Hope along with lack of higher education in Pak, Maths is atleast existent.


So Muslims never conquered and ruled india for centuries??

Right, the biggest proof is here :





​Muslims left a legacy in your bharat mata, a legacy which you two faced bharatis rush to claim when it benefits you and then disown to prove that you were never ruled by foreigners (as *you* are doing right now). Your ancestors threw their women at the feet of Muslim conquerors, filling up the Harems of Mughal & Afghan Kings and Sultans with hindu concubines and slaves in order to gain special privileges from the conquerors. And when the British invaded you repeated the same cycle with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## WAR-rior

Desert Fox said:


> So Muslims never conquered and ruled india for centuries??
> 
> Right, the biggest proof is here :
> 
> View attachment 224201
> 
> ​Muslims left a legacy in your bharat mata, a legacy which you two faced bharatis rush to claim when it benefits you and then disown to prove that you were never ruled by foreigners (as *you* are doing right now). Your ancestors threw their women at the feet of Muslim conquerors, filling up the Harems of Mughal & Afghan Kings and Sultans with hindu concubines and slaves in order to gain special privileges from the conquerors. And when the British invaded you repeated the same cycle with them.


Cut ur bullshit. Prove ur *1000 yr* theory or shut up. Period.


----------



## Desert Fox

WAR-rior said:


> Cut ur bullshit. Prove ur *1000 yr* theory or shut up. Period.


Don't get mad Muslims ruled you bharatis for centuries. 

Next time you take pride in the Taj Mahal, remember it was the result of centuries of Muslim rule over bharat mata.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ArsalanKhan21

save_ghenda said:


> Most pathans in India are fake, high caste rajputs and brahmins converts started to claim being pathans.



You have to take into account that the Hindu society is built on caste and many converts to Islam took "Khan" as surname to identify with the Muslims. Pashtuns do not have monopoly on the Khan surname. Khan is a Mogolian word meaning "military leader" nothing to do with the Pashtuns.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kabira

ArsalanKhan21 said:


> You have to take into account that the Hindu society is built on caste and many converts to Islam took "Khan" as surname to identify with the Muslims. Pashtuns do not have monopoly on the Khan surname. Khan is a Mogolian word meaning "military leader" nothing to do with the Pashtuns.



True but they claimed to be pathans and not just khan.


----------



## ArsalanKhan21

Desert Fox said:


> Next time you take pride in the Taj Mahal, remember



It is "Mumtaz Mahal" which shortened to Taj Mahal. Our eastern neighbors pronounce Z as J and J as Z. So Mumtaz turned into Mumtaj and then shortened to Taj. My friend Ejaz was called Ezaj while my Indian professor in university called Zero as Jero. It was hilarious !

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Desert Fox

ArsalanKhan21 said:


> It is "Mumtaz Mahal" which shortened to Taj Mahal. Our eastern neighbors pronounce Z as J and J as Z. So Mumtaz turned into Mumtaj and then shortened to Taj. My friend Ejaz was called Ezaj while my Indian professor in university called Zero as Jero. It was hilarious !


I thought Taj = Crown and thus Taj Mahal = Crown Palace??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ArsalanKhan21

Desert Fox said:


> I thought Taj = Crown and thus Taj Mahal = Crown Palace??



Shah Jahan built Mumtaz Mahal Mausoleum in honor of his wife Mumtaz Mahal.

Mumtaz Mahal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

''Mumtaz Mahal'' (1 September 1593 -17 June 1631) meaning "the chosen one of the palace") was a Mughal Empress and chief consort of emperor Shah Jahan. The Taj Mahal in Agra was constructed by her husband as her final resting place.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Desert Fox

ArsalanKhan21 said:


> Shah Jahan built Mumtaz Mahal Mausoleum in honor of his wife Mumtaz Mahal.
> 
> Mumtaz Mahal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ''Mumtaz Mahal'' (1 September 1593 -17 June 1631) meaning "the chosen one of the palace") was a Mughal Empress and chief consort of emperor Shah Jahan. The Taj Mahal in Agra was constructed by her husband as her final resting place.


Interesting. I was aware that Shah Jahan built the palace in honor of his wife but did not know that the Taj was originally from Mumtaz. 

Goes to show how original words/meanings can be butchered and completely altered over time.


----------



## WAR-rior

Desert Fox said:


> Don't get mad Muslims ruled you bharatis for centuries.
> 
> Next time you take pride in the Taj Mahal, remember it was the result of centuries of Muslim rule over bharat mata.


FOR CENTURIES? Next time some random Pakistani says Muslims ruled for 1000 years, will u come in and shut him up on my invitation? Say YES or NO? Will tag u everytime.


----------



## ArsalanKhan21

Desert Fox said:


> Interesting. I was aware that Shah Jahan built the palace in honor of his wife but did not know that the Taj was originally from Mumtaz. Goes to show how original words/meanings can be butchered and completely altered over time.



In Urdu, it would have been Muqbarah e Mumtaz Mahal (Mumtaz Mahal Mausoleum) but local population speaking Khari Boli changed Mumtaz to Mumtaj and then to just Taj.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Khan name got populsr after gangis khan


----------



## Kabira

Samandri said:


> I dont understand where the Khokars, who were very powerful in medieval times and appear to be numerous, have disappeared to?......I do not hear much about Khokars in the history after Jasrath. Any idea why they lost power and what is their history during reign of Mughals?
> @ghoul




Probably after Jasrath Khokhar, no new leader was born among them. Jasrath Khokhar mazhar is in Kurre, near Chenab river in Gujrat district. Sheikha Khokhar was from village Thakkar, Mandi Bahauddin. Their descendent still live there as was reported by Gujrat settlement report. 

Mythical origins of khokhar chuhras/christian is also explained here, sound rediculous.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Desert Fox

WAR-rior said:


> FOR CENTURIES? Next time some random Pakistani says Muslims ruled for 1000 years, will u come in and shut him up on my invitation? Say YES or NO? Will tag u everytime.


So you agree that Muslims DID rule india (something you were denying in your original post) and left a legacy that remains to this day?


----------



## WAR-rior

Desert Fox said:


> So you agree that Muslims DID rule india (something you were denying in your original post) and left a legacy that remains to this day?


I stick to the statement which even ur iconic historians repeat. India was ruled by invaders who supposed to be muslims. These invaders raped the local muslims more than any other religious sect and thats very well documented. These unfortunate locals were raped and tormented to such an extent and for so many times that they lost their senses to start associating and accept their invaders and rapists as their true ancestors. Who knows? Maybe true. Outcome of rape activity.

Ask Hassan Nisar. Hes one guy whome biggest of intelluects of Pakistan cant deny or argue in case of content and logic. Hope someone irrelevant like u wont try doing it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tiger Genie

save_ghenda said:


> Most pathans in India are fake, high caste rajputs and brahmins converts started to claim being pathans.
> 
> In bollywood Amir, Salman and Saif are real pathan decendents. Sharukh is fake pathan, he is proud of his father side being pathan but they were awans actually with khan last name. His cousin in Pakistan was surprised why he claim to be pathan. His mother is south indian. Dilip is another fake pathan, but I am not sure if he claim it or not. He was awan also.



that's a sweeping generalization...again as I said it means nothing these days. Just like people arguing if their ancestors were forced converts, raped converts or voluntary converts at the hands of the mugals etc. WHat are you going to do? Claim reparations from Mongolia Turkey Greece or India for injustice done to your twelve generations+ past ancestor whom you don't even know the name of? I find it quite amusing when people claim things like loyalty because they have gurrkha genes, courage because they have Rajput genes, intelligence because they Brahmin genes, sealegs because they have Nordic genes etc...


----------



## Erhabi

Tiger Genie said:


> that's a sweeping generalization...again as I said it means nothing these days. Just like people arguing if their ancestors were forced converts, raped converts or voluntary converts at the hands of the mugals etc. WHat are you going to do? Claim reparations from Mongolia Turkey Greece or India for injustice done to your twelve generations+ past ancestor whom you don't even know the name of? I find it quite amusing when people claim things like *loyalty because they have gurrkha genes, courage because they have Rajput genes, intelligence because they Brahmin genes, sealegs because they have Nordic genes etc*...



Be proud you got Tiger Genes


----------



## Tiger Genie

Malik Abdullah said:


> Be proud you got Tiger Genes


it is as laughable as that. glad you got it


----------



## Desert Fox

WAR-rior said:


> I stick to the statement which even ur iconic historians repeat. India was ruled by invaders who supposed to be muslims. These invaders raped the local muslims more than any other religious sect and thats very well documented. These unfortunate locals were raped and tormented to such an extent and for so many times that they lost their senses to start associating and accept their invaders and rapists as their true ancestors. Who knows? Maybe true. Outcome of rape activity.
> 
> Ask Hassan Nisar. Hes one guy whome biggest of intelluects of Pakistan cant deny or argue in case of content and logic. Hope someone irrelevant like u wont try doing it


I'm glad you admit that Muslims invaders ruled india for centuries and that Delhi (india's capital today) was established by Islamic invaders and that Taj Mahal which indians take pride in was built by Muslim invaders and that hindu women were concubines of Muslim invaders.

View attachment 224176



*Mughal Empire:*

View attachment 224177



*Suri Dynasty*

View attachment 224173
​


----------



## Hiptullha

WAR-rior said:


> Ask Hassan Nisar. Hes one guy whome biggest of intelluects of Pakistan cant deny or argue in case of content and logic. Hope someone irrelevant like u wont try doing it


Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Argument from authority*, also *authoritative argument* and *appeal to authority*, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning.[1]
> 
> In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]
> 
> A is an authority on a particular topic
> A says something about that topic
> A is probably correct


----------



## Jaggu

ArsalanKhan21 said:


> It is "Mumtaz Mahal" which shortened to Taj Mahal. Our eastern neighbors pronounce Z as J and J as Z. So Mumtaz turned into Mumtaj and then shortened to Taj. My friend Ejaz was called Ezaj while my Indian professor in university called Zero as Jero. It was hilarious !


sad but actually true



save_ghenda said:


> Probably after Jasrath Khokhar, no new leader was born among them. Jasrath Khokhar mazhar is in Kurre, near Chenab river in Gujrat district. Sheikha Khokhar was from village Thakkar, Mandi Bahauddin. Their descendent still live there as was reported by Gujrat settlement report.
> 
> Mythical origins of khokhar chuhras/christian is also explained here, sound rediculous.
> 
> View attachment 224417


It seems the Khokhars were the most powerful tribe of Punjab at one point. Indeed, It's a mystery what happened to them.


----------



## punit

Desert Fox said:


> So you agree that Muslims DID rule india (something you were denying in your original post) and left a legacy that remains to this day?


who can deny this .. first Delhi Sultnate and then Mughals ruled India for few centuries.



Desert Fox said:


> I'm glad you admit that Muslims invaders ruled india for centuries and that Delhi (india's capital today) was established by Islamic invaders and that Taj Mahal which indians take pride in was built by* Muslim invaders and that hindu women were concubines of Muslim invaders.*
> 
> View attachment 224176
> 
> 
> 
> *Mughal Empire:*
> 
> View attachment 224177
> 
> 
> 
> *Suri Dynasty*
> 
> View attachment 224173
> ​


and the resultant are modern pakistanis !


----------



## Desert Fox

punit said:


> and the resultant are modern pakistanis !




I don't think so since most of those hindu concubines were from central india. *Which is why today millions of indians claim Mughal ancestry and have last names like Mirza.*


----------



## Niazi2222

Pathans has Tribes
in india was last ruling time of pathan was lodhi dynasty and started with suri.
who were lodhi? not low hindu cast lodhi, its two different things
lodhi was titles for kings and generals
Lodhi are from Khilji tribe, after mughals came they were kicked out by mughals and came to today around indus river bank. their cousen were suri dynasty , sher shah suri was from kakar tribe, suri was also title, his army was full with Niazis and marwats, his famouse generals hebat khan niazi, khwas khan marwat, they build rhotas fort. i think who read history he know what am talking here.
people in subcontinent have complexes and they recognized their self by invaders and they shameon their ancestors.
in KPK are living awan, jatt, gujjar they call themself pathna because they speak pashtu, in kpk speak chritian and sikh also pushto but its doesnt mean to be pathan.
in india 90% khan are fake
shahrukh khan : father was awan from peshawar mother south indian
feroz khan : from hazara they are tanoli and not pathans
aamir khan : farsi decendents from herat, nothing to do with pathans
indian has complexes and many also in pakistan, i know many mirasi and musali from myvillage when theygoout side they call themselves Niazi.
jisko apna baap change karney ka shouq ho to uski apni marzi


----------



## django

Niazi2222 said:


> Pathans has Tribes
> in india was last ruling time of pathan was lodhi dynasty and started with suri.
> who were lodhi? not low hindu cast lodhi, its two different things
> lodhi was titles for kings and generals
> Lodhi are from Khilji tribe, after mughals came they were kicked out by mughals and came to today around indus river bank. their cousen were suri dynasty , sher shah suri was from kakar tribe, suri was also title, his army was full with Niazis and marwats, his famouse generals hebat khan niazi, khwas khan marwat, they build rhotas fort. i think who read history he know what am talking here.
> people in subcontinent have complexes and they recognized their self by invaders and they shameon their ancestors.
> in KPK are living awan, jatt, gujjar they call themself pathna because they speak pashtu, in kpk speak chritian and sikh also pushto but its doesnt mean to be pathan.
> in india 90% khan are fake
> shahrukh khan : father was awan from peshawar mother south indian
> feroz khan : from hazara they are tanoli and not pathans
> aamir khan : farsi decendents from herat, nothing to do with pathans
> indian has complexes and many also in pakistan, i know many mirasi and musali from myvillage when theygoout side they call themselves Niazi.
> jisko apna baap change karney ka shouq ho to uski apni marzi


My dear chap their are no Jatt in KPK, and no they would not refer to themselves as pashtun, I have many awan freinds from the hazara region, non of them call themselves pashtun.perhaps SRK is not an awan or is very uneducated in the issue believing that anyone from Peshawar is a pashtun like many others do who are outside of the region btw feroz khan was a tanoli from ghazni afghanistan,kudos


----------



## Sugarcane

Niazi2222 said:


> i know many mirasi and musali from myvillage when theygoout side they call themselves Niazi.



Are you posting from out side?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Samandri said:


> I dont understand why Rajputs needed to assume Pathan identity after conversion to Islam when the concept of Muslim Rajput exists e.g those of Mewat. It seems to me Rajputs attached Khan surname after accepting Islam , as it was customary for muslim nobles in India and ignorant people of later generations started calling them Pathans due to Khan name.
> 
> Converts from Low castes, were more keen to assume identity of the ruling muslim class.......Those who didnt assumed fake identities and kept their ancestral professions, were called ajlafs. Basically ajlafs are genuine people, while most of the ashrafs in India are fake.



From what I've heard from Rajputs .. They changed the Singh surname with Khan after accepting Islam... It has nothing to do with changing their ancestory.. Rajputs are proud people ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Khan or Kahn or Can or Chan- > Note the name is also popular as far as in Hong Kong

Name became popular after Mongol overcame various civilizations and controlled a lot of Territory quite fast

Few of the leaders had the last name at that time

General population adopted the name as a trend in society in that time as perhaps the name showed acceptance of new King

If you imagine the path of Mongols you can see path from Mongolia to present day Pakistan areas etc


----------



## Samandri

django said:


> My dear chap their are no Jatt in KPK, and no they would not refer to themselves as pashtun, I have many awan freinds from the hazara region, non of them call themselves pashtun.perhaps SRK is not an awan or is very uneducated in the issue believing that anyone from Peshawar is a pashtun like many others do who are outside of the region btw feroz khan was a tanoli from ghazni afghanistan,kudos


In Southern districts of KPK, you will find Jat population. There is Seraiki speaking Jat population of DI Khan and there are also pockets of Pashto speaking Jats in Tank, Lakki and Bannu.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

Samandri said:


> In Southern districts of KPK, you will find Jat population. There is Seraiki speaking Jat population of DI Khan and there are also pockets of Pashto speaking Jats in Tank, Lakki and Bannu.


Was not aware of that. Perhaps their origins are different than the ones in Punjab/kashmir, @save_ghenda can perhaps elaborate more on this.kudos


----------



## Samandri

Niazi2222 said:


> Pathans has Tribes
> in india was last ruling time of pathan was lodhi dynasty and started with suri.
> who were lodhi? not low hindu cast lodhi, its two different things
> lodhi was titles for kings and generals
> Lodhi are from Khilji tribe, after mughals came they were kicked out by mughals and came to today around indus river bank. their cousen were suri dynasty , sher shah suri was from kakar tribe, suri was also title, his army was full with Niazis and marwats, his famouse generals hebat khan niazi, khwas khan marwat, they build rhotas fort. i think who read history he know what am talking here.
> people in subcontinent have complexes and they recognized their self by invaders and they shameon their ancestors.
> in KPK are living awan, jatt, gujjar they call themself pathna because they speak pashtu, in kpk speak chritian and sikh also pushto but its doesnt mean to be pathan.
> in india 90% khan are fake
> shahrukh khan : father was awan from peshawar mother south indian
> feroz khan : from hazara they are tanoli and not pathans
> aamir khan : farsi decendents from herat, nothing to do with pathans
> indian has complexes and many also in pakistan, i know many mirasi and musali from myvillage when theygoout side they call themselves Niazi.
> jisko apna baap change karney ka shouq ho to uski apni marzi



Brother Niazi, just one correction. Sher Shah Suri was not a Kakar but from cousin tribe of Niazis and Marwats (Lohanis). Suri is a Lodi tribe, so are Niazis. As the dynasty was established by a Lodi clan (Prangi), so in power sharing, preference was given to other Lodi tribes like Dotanis, Lohanis (Marwats, Miya Khels etc), Niazis, Sarwanis etc.



django said:


> Was not aware of that. Perhaps their origins are different than the ones in Punjab/kashmir, @save_ghenda can perhaps elaborate more on this.kudos


They are the same as Jats of South Punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Kabira

django said:


> Was not aware of that. Perhaps their origins are different than the ones in Punjab/kashmir, @save_ghenda can perhaps elaborate more on this.kudos



I have no idea about them, neither their tribe names. Pak Central punjabi muslim and east punjab sikh jatts have similar tribes but not sure about those in KPK. British census of region can be helpful. I have only read Hazara division Gazatter and there was no mention of jats or rajputs in that region but other tribes like abbasi, ghakkhar, gujjar, tanolis, jaduns etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## django

save_ghenda said:


> I have no idea about them, neither their tribe names. Pak Central punjabi muslim and east punjab sikh jatts share clan names but not sure about those in KPK. British census of region can be helpful. I have only read Hazara division Gazatter and there was no mention of jats or rajputs in that region but other tribes like abbasi, ghakkhar, gujjar, tanolis, jaduns etc


Yes in know in Hazara their are no jats.


----------



## Kabira

Niazi2222 said:


> indian has complexes and many also in pakistan, i know many mirasi and musali from myvillage when theygoout side they call themselves Niazi.
> rzi



We are no longer living in medieval age when they were dependent on land lords for food. Now in many cases they are more well off then their former masters but musali is stigma and they want to get rid of it by adopting other tribe names. Now days it's common to see people from these castes/tribes adopting different surnames despite not changing their forefathers profession even in rural areas.

Honestly I can't blame them.


----------



## Bharat Muslim

OK tell me is this guy (in the link) real Pathan?

@django @save_ghenda @ghoul @Desert Fox @lrb @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Malik Abdullah @Hiptullha @Niazi2222 @DESERT FIGHTER @LoveIcon


----------



## django

Bharat Muslim said:


> OK tell me is this guy (in the link) real Pathan?
> 
> @django @save_ghenda @ghoul @Desert Fox @lrb @AZADPAKISTAN2009 @Malik Abdullah @Hiptullha @Niazi2222 @DESERT FIGHTER @LoveIcon


One would have to know what his tribe is to answer this question, KPK is a very diverse place with hindko speaking awans, gujjars etc, pashtuns, pashto speaking artisans, kohistanis, chitralis and other dardics sttled in kpk.


----------



## Deidara

The title Khan belongs to both Turks and Mongols. They are a related people. Another related people the Avars dominated central asia first, after them Turks dominated this region then later Mongols dominated central asia. They all used the titles 'khan' and 'khagan'.


----------



## Sine Nomine

@save_ghenda


Jaggu said:


> sad but actually true
> 
> 
> It seems the Khokhars were the most powerful tribe of Punjab at one point. Indeed, It's a mystery what happened to them.


Not a mystery my friend originally khokhar Branch of Rajputs hail from salt range,they have numerous settlements in Salt range and river jehelum both banks and slowly they spread upto Lahore.
Locking Horn with every other Ruler cast them alot, fight with Afghans and letter not submitting themselves to Raj and sikhs pushed them back,today still there are settlements of khokhars were all inhabitants are relatives.

_KHOKHAR RAJPUTS.. a short brief:

Origins

H. A. Rose finds early references to the Khokhars in the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, the Tabaqat-i-Nasir and the Ain-i-Akbari, with the earliest certain record being in the first of these, which was written in 1205 AD. These ancient texts recount a rebellion against the Muslim governor of Sangwan that occurred during the rule of Muhammad of Ghor. There had been incorrect rumours that the Sultan had died and these led to uprisings, among which was that of the Khokhars. They joined in rebellion with Rai Sal, the ruler of the Salt Range, but were heavily defeated. Rose makes it clear that there is uncertainty regarding whether Rai Sal was himself a Khokhar.

Rose believe that the origin of the Khokhar lay probably in a Hindu community but that they are "obscure" and some of their traditions of origin do not stand scrutiny. The tribal folklore claims a connection to the Awan community through a son of Qutb Shah, but Rose dismisses it as "this pedigree probably merely records the fact that the Awans and Khokhars owe their conversion to Islam to the saint Qutb Shah or his disciples, or that they both accepted his teachings." Rose is unconvinced by the Awan traditional lore regarding Qutb Shah which states that he ruled Herat and came to India to fight with several of his sons, including one called Khokhar, when Mahmud of Ghazni was invading an area which nowadays forms part of Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India. Rose believes that the names of the descendants of Qutb Shah who came to settle in India are clearly not of Arabic origin and therefore the connection between those people and their alleged ancestor are unlikely.

Ahmed Abdulla has summarised this situation more recently

... the Awans, Khokhars and Khatars claim common ancestry from Qutb Shah, who is said to have come from Ghazni with Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, [but] scholars hold the view that they were most probably converted by Qutb Shah during Mahmud Ghaznnavi's reign and were not his descendants. This tendency of claiming foreign origin by some of the local tribes is not uncommon. "Even admittedly Rajput tribes of famous ancestry such as the Khokhar, have begun to follow the example of claiming connection with the Mughal conquerors of India or the Qureshi cousins of the prophet".

Aside from his work with the ancient texts, Rose also refers to an event of 1009 AD in which an infidel community known as the Gakkhars joined with Hindus to resist a Muslim invasion. He believes that these Gakkhars "in all probability" were the Khokhars.

Similarly, many campaigns were undertaken against the Khokhars by Sultan Shahabuddin Ghori in the Punjab and ultimately he was killed by the Khokhars of the Salt Range in March 1206. Any confusion which may once have existed regarding which tribe did what appears to have it origins in the works of Firishta. Rose points out that historians prior to Firishta were in agreement that it was the Khokkars who had killed Ghori, that Sheika and Jasrat were not Gakkhars and that, generally, Firishta confused the two tribes on several occasions. He noted that Firishta plagiarised some content of an earlier historian - Ibn-i-Asir - but applied it to the wrong tribe, and he speculated that Firishta may even have had some grudge against the Gakkhars because of their ill treatment of one of Firishta's relatives.

Historical figures such as Sheikha and Jasrat are nowadays regarded as being Khokhar.
_
*Historical records*
_
Coin of Mu'izzuddin Muhammad Bin Sam (Sultan Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori), circa 1173-1206 , Issued from Delhi following coin typology of Prithviraja.

In 1240 AD, Razia, the daughter of Shams-ud-din Iltutmish marched with her husband Altunia to recapture the throne from her brother Muizuddin Bahram Shah, she is reported to have headed an army composed mostly of mercenaries from the Khokhar tribe of the Punjab

"In 1246-7 Balban mounted an expedition as far as the Salt Range to chastise the Khokhars" "His last campaign was undertaken with the object of subjugating the turbulent Khokhars of the Salt Range."

"The Khokhran section is said to consist of the descendants of certain Khatris who joined the Khokhars in rebellion against Ala-ud-din Khilji who ascended the throne of the Delhi Sultanate in AD 1296.);and with whom other Khatri families were afraid to intermarry ". The Khokhran were concentrated in the areas of the Salt Range and particularly Bhera. Although Lahore was reoccupied by Dehli, for the next twenty years Lahore remained in ruined condition, being sacked on several occasion by the Mongols or by their Khokhar allies. Around the same time a Mongol commander named Hulechu occupied Lahore in alliance with Khokhar chief Gulchand, the one time ally of Muhammad's father.
_
*Shaikha Khokhar and Tamerlane*
_
The Lahore Fort was badly damaged after being occupied by Shaikha Khokhar in 1393 A.D.

Shaikha Khokhar (sometimes Sheikha or Shuja) was a chief of the Khokhars in the 14th and early 15th centuries and a contemporary of Tamerlane's invasions into Punjab. Shaikha occupied Lahore in 1393.



Monument of Timur (Tamerlane) in Tashkent.

'In Meantime Tamerlane marching from the north encamped outside Tulamba (October 13, 1398). After chastising some zamindars in the neighourhood and seizing a large number of cattle he passed on leaving the fort uncaptured. He then halted at Jal (or may be at a 'chal'or lake on the Bias 'opposite Shahpur' from which he marched out with a flying column to chastise Nusrat Khokhar who was encamped in swampy ground on the bank of the lake. The 'unsanctified Indians' being defeated and the 'God forsaken being slain', the army moved to Shahnawaz.
_
*Jasrath Khokhar*
_
Jasrath/Jasrat or Dashrath Khokhar was the son of Shaikha Khokhar and leader of the Khokhars in the 15th century.

On the death of Taimur, Jasrat escaped from prison, returned home and assumed the leadership of his tribe and set himself up at Sialkot. Intervening in the civil war in Kashmir between Ali Shah and Shahi Khan, while favouring the latter he gained immensely by his victory. Being enriched with wealth and equipment and fortified by the friendship of the new King of Kashmir, he conceived of conquering Delhi. The joining of Tughan Rais, after his defeat at the hands of Khizr Khan’s general, Zirak Khan, further strengthened his hands and emboldened him in his designs. Availing himself of the opportunity provided by the death of Khizr Khan, he crossed the Ravi, the Beas and the Satluj, swooped down upon the Governor of Ludhiana, Rai Kama-ud-Din Firoz Mian, at Talwandi, defeated him and drove him to the east. Encouraged by that victory, he ravaged the country as far as Rupar and, recrossing the Satluj, laid siege to Jullundur, worsted and imprisoned the Governor, Zirak Khan. From there, He marched on Sirhind, but the rains delayed his plan of conquest



Samarkand in Uzbekistan. Jasrath was captured and brought here after Shaikha Khokhar's defeat in 1398 AD:

In 1428 AD , The Mughal armies, under Shaikh Ali of Kabul, invaded and a contingent of Khokhars headed by 'ain-ud-din and malik abu-l-khair joined them at Talwara to guide them onwards.

He did not, however, live to see the fruition of his plan, for, in A.D. 1442, he was murdered by his queen to avenge the death of her Father, Rai Bhilam.
_
*Grand-nephew of Jasrath Khokhar aligned with Mughal Emperor Akbar*
_


Buland Darwaza built by emperor Akbar in 1602 A.D.

In the time of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, the Khokhars held portions of the Bari Doab, the Jullunder and Rachna Doabs, Multan and portions of Jammu and Sialkot, with a population estimated at 200,000 souls.:

"In March 1557, Akbar was at Delhi when the news reached that an instigation of Mulla Abdulla Sultanpuri and Sikandar Sur had descended upon the plains of Jalandhar Doab and had started collecting the revenue. In consequence, Akbar was sent in charge of Bairam Khan to the Punjab and advanced by way of Sirhind, Sultanpur and Hariana on Kalanaur, while Sikandar Sur withdrew to Mankot. The imperial forces immediately advanced through Jalandhar to the Shivalik Hills and encamped at Dasuya. The hill Rajas, who had sided with Sikandar Sur deserted him and submitted to Akbar. After receiving the submission of the Raja of Kangra, Akbar took up his residence at Jalandhar, where among others, Kamal Khan, a grandnephew of Jasrath Khokhar before mentioned, waited on him and was well received. Akbar was now called to the east to meet Hemu, and during his absence Sikandar Sur defeated Khizr Khan, Governor of Lahore, at Chamiari, which may be the village of that name in the extreme north of the Jalandhar District. This disaster necessitated the return of Akbar, who had defeated Hemu at Panipat."
_
*From the 1882 census*
_
Rose says that:

:"On the other hand in Shahpur the Bhat are divided into Bunjahis and Khokhars, the latter suggesting the Khokhrain group of the Khatris thus

Section of Khokhars - Gotra

Sigarre Kushab 

Nadhipotre Bhardwaj 

Apat Balash

Jain Vashisht
_
*Titles*
_
Malik is used by Khokhars and Khokhran, and refers to chiefs, primarily by Qutab-Shahi Khokhars who claim to be descendants of Qutab Shah. Chaudhry is used by Khokhars in parts of Punjab. Raja is used by many Khokhars, and is commonly used by Rajputs in Punjab. Rana is also commonly used by Rajputs in Punjab, and is used by Khokhars in central and eastern Punjab. Rai is also used.
_
*Divisions*
_
There are several sub-divisions of the Khokhar tribe, such as the Bandial, Bhachar, Dhaulka, Ganjial, Jalap, Majoka, Rawal, and Denaar.





The Punjab and it's surrounding areas in 1903. The historical home of the Khokhar clan.




Samarkand in Uzbekistan. Jasrath was captured and brought here after Shaikha Khokhar's defeat in 1398 AD




The Lahore Fort was badly damaged after being occupied by Shaikha Khokhar in 1393 A.D.




Coin of Mu'izzuddin Muhammad Bin Sam (Sultan Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghori), circa 1173-1206 , Issued from Delhi following coin typology of Prithviraja._


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

Whats happeneing on this thread is the main reason Pakistan couldnt move forward..and still struggling with its inner demons..


----------

