History of Afghans (Articles and Pictures)

[Samandri]

Very few people know about it.
Afghanistan's incursions into Bajaur (1960-61)

 

[Samandri]

Afghans in Bengal continued resisting mughals upto 1614, one of the chapter of Afghans of Bengal is Usman Khan Miankhel. Here is banglapedia article on him.
Banglapedia

 

[Kabira]

Ok now i know from where you are coming from, so this was the reason to make Tajiks non-indigenous who came with Arabs

You have weak grasp of the story, i am not making it up, i checked iranica and tajik sources which say that persians from present day iran mixed with east iranian groups like bactarians and sogdians (i think i have repeated myself 100 times now) who were cousins of pashtuns. Persian langauge and culture is strong so it didnt have to be a large scale migration to alter the racial make up of indegenous east iranian groups. You can say persians were racially absorbed by bactarians and sogdians but linguistically they got absorbed by persians. E.g many clans of pashtuns have been persianized though racially they would be much pashtuns. You can say, that racially tajiks are close to pashtuns than to iranians.
About hindkowans, big portion of them have come from potohar during sikh period. You will also find kianis, awans etc in hindkowans of peshawer. Some are remnants of mughal period and before that.

There is no such a thing as genetical absorbation unless Tajiks who came with Arabs made 2-3% of current day Tajik population, in either case so called Tajiks of Afghanistan are indigenous. You believe in century old sources but world have come a long way since then.

 

[Samandri]

Dilawar khan ghauri, the Afghan governor of Malwa for Tuqhlaqs, asserted his independence in 1392 and assumed royalty in 1401. In 1436 the ghauris were replaced by khiljis.
Full text of "Medieval Malwa A Political And Cultural History 1401-1562"

 

[kalu_miah]

Khiljis are Afghan

Abdul Hai Habibi

In the Indian Historical Congress, held in 1939, one of the speakers who spoke on this issue said that the Khaljies were not Turks, and his studies were published in the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. But before this Edward Thomas had published a book entitled The Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi, in 1871 in London, in which he recalls that from 1193 to 1554 A.D., the Delhi Sultans were Pathan=Afghan kings. During this period five Moslem dynasties and 40 kings ruled over the Delhi throne.[1] Sir Wolseley Haig, who published the third volume of the Cambridge History of India in 1928, in which he discusses Turks and Afghans in India, says for the sake of precaution that the Khaljies were related to Afghans and adds that they were Turks who adhere to Afghan customs and live in the Garmser area of Afghanistan. Since their second race came into being in India, they have denied being the descendants of Turkish origin.[2]

In the whereabouts of 1205 A.D. and after the death of the Ghorid emperor Mui’ziz-ud-din Mohammad Saam, a number of Afghans, some of whom were of the Pashto speaking Afghan origin and others belonged to the Turkish race were raised in Afghan courts and got mixed with Afghans. Therefore, scholars like Thomas and his predecessors consider them afghan even they might have been related to Turks or Arabs. For example, when Khazir Khan, the son of Malik Sulayman conquered Delhi in 1404 A.D., he and his followers (according to Mohammad Qasim Firishta) considered themselves to be the descendants of the Prophet Mohammad. Yahya, son of Ahmad Shahrani, who wrote Tarikh-e Mubarak Shahi in 1404 A.D., in the name of his son Mubarakshah, and other historians like Shams Siraj A’fif in Tarikh-e Ferozshahi and Abdul Qadir Badayuni, the author of Muntakhab-ul-Tawarikh also consider this dynasty to be Sayyids or the descendents of Mohammad the Prophet. But Mohammad Qasim Ferishta says: “Before this Malik Sulamaan never claimed to be a descendent of the Prophet Mohammad.”[3] The same subject has also been written by Maulawi Ahmad Ali Hindi.[4] While Zakaullah, the modern Indian historian manifests that Malik Sulaymaan and his son were Afghans and not Sayyids of the Arabic race.[5]
View attachment 51158

Since in this article the issue under investigation is the Khalji and refutation that they are linked to the Turks, explanations and details into other issues will not be discussed. From the available historical and linguistic reasoning it can be said that Khalji is the present Ghalji and is the name of certain Afghan tribes. This root is present in Gharj, Gharcha, Ghalcha and other historical words, and “gh” has converted to “kh”, hence Ghalji has been mispronounced as Khalji. This change is seen in the texts of the third, fourth and following centuries of the Hijera.

According to Minhaj Seraj there were over 15 great Khalji personalities who ruled from 1203 A.D. onwards over India and were spreading Khorasanian and Islamic culture all over northern India and the highlands of North Bengal.[6] Once again the Khaljies ruled over Delhi from 1203 to 1320 A.D. All these rulers were the Ghaljis of Afghanistan. Several places are still known in Afghanistan as Khalaj. Such as the Khalaj (near Gizeo of Rozgan, north of Kandahar), the Khalaj[7] of Helmand valley and the Khalaj of Ghazna, which Yaqut also mentions[8] as being near Ghazni in the land of Zabulistan.

In view of linguistic analysis, Khalji, Ghalji or Ghalzi are Gharzay, meaning mountain-dwellers (in Pahsto ghar means a mountain and zay born of). In the tale of Kak Kohzad (Mulhaqat-e-Shahnama, vol. 5, p. 33) these people are of Afghan descent and according to the author of this book they lived in Zabul (between Ghazni and Helmand) in the plain which is linked with Hindwan. These people are said to be tent dwellers. Kohzad is the translation of Pashto Gharza and the Ghalji. Tent dwellers still live in the same manner in this region. Just as in Pashto this ancient word is Gharzay=Gharlji=Khalji. In Arabic it is written Gharj, and kohzad in Dari has the same structure and meaning. The term is so old that Panini, the founder of Sanskrit grammar (about 350 B.C.), has called the tribes of central and northern Rohita-Giri=Hindu Kush, as Pohita Giries or mountaineers[9], which means kohzad or gharzay=Khalji.

We know that Indians called this land Roh. Huen Tsang has also noted this word in 630 A.D. and after 1203 A.D. Indian authors have called Afghanistan, (extending from Heart to Hasan Abdal) Roh[10] and its inhabitants as Rohela, which means kohzad or Ghalji=Khalji. In India a place named Rohil-Kohzad is related to Rohela (Kohzad) and was the dwelling place of Afghans who had settled in India. In the names of some tribes “gh” has ben converted to “kh” e.g. Khir=Khez=Qir=Ghez[11] or the present Saghar, south of Ghor, has been recorded as Saakhar by Minhaj Sierj.[12]
With great doubt Mohammad Qasim Firisha states from Tabaqat-e Akbari of Nizam-ud-Din Ahmad Bakhshi Hirawi that Khaljies are the descendants of Khalij Khan, the son-in-law of Genghis Khan. But this statement is not true, since historical documents reveal that Khaljies or Ghaljies lived in Zabulistan three centuries before Genghis. The unknown author of Hudud-ul-Alam writes in 982 A.D.: “In Ghazna and the vicinity of these towns, which have been mentioned here, live Taraks of Khalj.” They are a nomadic people and possess a lot of sheep. These Taraks of Khalj are found in great numbers in Balkh, Tukharistan and Gozganan also.[13]

Minhaj Siraj once again proves that the Khaljies ruled long before Genghis and his son-in-law over India and their empire stretched as far as the highlands of North Bengal. A full chapter of the 20th part of his book deals with these people.[14]

He says that the Khaljies live near Ghazni, Garmseer and Ghor, but has not said anything about these people being Turks. On the other hand, he clearly refers to other rulers of Turkish descent as Turks.

Khalj, which has been altered to Khalakh by calligraphers, was a well-known word among geographers long before the compilation of Hudud-ul-Alam. Ibne Khurdadbeh (844-848 A.D.) also speaks about Khaljiya. He confirms that there is a difference between Khalj and says: “the winter dwelling of Turks of Kharlukh (Kharlikh) is near Taraz and nearby them lie the pastures of Khalj (Khaljiya).[15] From this it is evident that the nomadic tribes of Khalji of that time, similar to their present habits, moved towards warmer regions during the cold season of the year. According to Ibn-e Khurdadbeh these regions were called Jarmiya (Jurum of Baladhuri and Minhaj Siraj). Ibn-e Khurdadbeh writes that their winter pastures were on this side of the Oxus river (p. 3). Some of these nomadic tribes still go to these areas.

Another geographer Ibrahim Ibn-e Mohammad Istakhri (about 951 A.D.) writes Khalj are a clan of Atrak (most probably a plural of Tarak) who came to the region between India and Seistan during ancient times. They had large stocks of sheep and their language and clothes resemble those of Turks.[16]

Some oriental scholars are of the belief that Gharjies are the descendants of Helthalites (presumably a mixed race of Hepthalite and Pakhts who have been living in Afghanistan since the Vedic Aryan period). Marquart says: Khalch or Kholackj are descendants of the Yaftals, who have been mentioned as Khwalas in Syrian sources (about 554 A.D.). After this in 569 A.D. ambassador Zemarchos has written this name as Xoliatai.[17]

Mohammd son of Ahmad Khwarazmi (980 A.D.) says: Khalj and Taraks of Kabjiya[18] are the descendants of Hayatila who held great prestige in Tukharistan.[19]

The Khalj and Afghans have always been mentioned together and indispensably their place or origin and race was common. Abu Nasr Mohammad, son of Abdul Jabbar Utbi (1023 A.D.), in the conquests of Subuktagin writes as follows: “the Afghans and Khalj obeyed Subuktagin and reluctantly joined his forces.”[20] Ibn-ul-Athir has also mentioned this event in the same manner.[21]

Minorsky clearly writes that these Khaljies are the ancestors of the present Afghan Ghalji. Barthold and Haig have written the same in the Islamic Encyclopedia.[22] It can therefore be said that Khalji or Ghalji were related to the Hepthalites and Zabul rulers, since the Helthalites, (Hayatila of Arabs) ruled over Zabulistan. Their features struck on coins resemble the features of the Ghalji youth who live in this area and have high noses, almond eyes, bushy hair, and strong features.

Therefore, Khaljies or Ghaljies are not the descendants of those Turks or Ghuz who had come to Khorasan during the Islamic period, but are Hepthalites of the Arian race who were famous as White Huns and lived in Tukharistan and Zabulistan and the name of their ancestors has remained in the names of the present Ghalji—the Kochi=Koshi tribes of Zabul. Similarly the root of Hiftal is seen in Yaftal and Haftali in Abdali. The word Ghalji is known in Badakhshan now as Ghalcha=Garcha. In Dari literature this word means a simple man or mountain dweller. Abu Tayib Musa’bi (about 938 A.D.), the poet of the Samanid court says:

If a Garcha can live over one hundred years,

Why did the Arab (Prophet) live only sixty three?

The word Koch and Baloch have been written in the same place in appendages of Shahnama, and the Arabs have Arabized them to Qufs and Balus. In fact they are Khalji=Ghalji nomads having an ancient history in Ariana. Some scholars believe that these Kochi (nomads) are the Apa Kochiya mentioned in Achaemenian inscriptions who lived in this region before commingling between the Hunnish Arians.[23] The blending of White Huns of Arian descent with Pakhts (Paxtoons) in Bactria, the valleys of the Hindu Kush, Kabulistan, and Zabulistan was a natural phenomenon since two northern and southern branches of the Arian race have got mixed. It is not evident what language the White Arians (Hun=Hepthalite) spoke, but from the closeness of dialects in the upper Hindu Kush e.g. Gharcha, Wakhi etc. it can be guessed to have resembled Pashto and certain Pashto sounds which are not found in Pahlawi, Dari, Avesta and Sanskrit are present in these dialects until now. These white Arian Huns were Haftali (Abdali) who attacked India from Zabulistan and conquered Kashmir. The Sanskrit inscription of the 7th century A.D. found in 1839 A.D. in Wihand on the banks of the Indus river near Attock refers to them as strong men who ate meat and calls them Turushka.[24]

The Kashmiri historian, Kalkana, in his book Raja Tarangini (1148 A.D.) writes about these kings and their ferocious attacks over Kashmir and says that the Turushkas carried their weapons upon their shoulders and shaved half their scalp. He says that the Kushanid kings Kanishka, Hushka, and Jushka are the descendents of Turushka.[25]

Turushka of Indian sources will be discussed later. The Huns who after the 6th century A.D. increased in numbers after amalgamating with the Pashtoons and attacked India have been called Khans in India and until the present time Pashtoons are called Khan all over India due to the alteration of h and kh in central Asian languages. For example the Hwarazm was converted to Khwarazm. The Turks pronounce Khanam as Hanam while the Afridis of Khyber pronounce Khan and Khun. In Masalik of Ibn-Khurdadbeh the name of Turkhan has been written as Tarkhum (p. 41). Therefore it is possible that Huns or Khun could have been converted to Khan, which means that the Afghan Khalji Khans were not Turks and we have the following reasoning to prove this statement.

1. Mahmud Kashghari (1074 A.D.), who was of Turkish descent and a Turkologist says: The ghuz of Turkmans comprise 24 tribes, but two Khaljiya tribes resemble the Turks are not considered Turks.[26] This Turkish historian who has studied the Turks and even note their tribes, refrains from adding the name of Khalj with the Turks.[27]

2. Mohammad son of Bakran in the whereabouts of 1203 A.D. writes: The Khaljies of Taraks migrated from Khalukh to Zabulistan. They have settled in the plain near Ghaznayn. Because of the hot weather their color has changed and they became swarthy, their language also changed. As a misreading Khalukh is read Khalj.[28]

From this declaration of the author of Jahan Nama it is clear that due to differences in color and language the Khaljiya were separate by all means from the Turks and a misreading existed between Khalj and Khalukh.

3. Minhaj Seraj, who is from Khorasan and is well familiar with the affairs of this land, knows a number of Turkish rulers of India, but has always referred to the Turkish and Turks and the Khaljiya as Khaljies.

4. Zia Barani, the Indian historian (1357 A.D.) in his book Tarikh-e-Ferozshahi, has a special chapter where he says the king must be among the Turks but when Malik Jalaluddin Khalji ascended the Delhi throne he says: “the people found it difficult to tolerate a Khalji king.”[29] Since Khaljies were not Turks Indian historians also considered them to be Afghans.[30]

5. In Afghan literature the Khalji of India have been referred to as being Afghan Ghalji. Khushal Khan Khattak, the famous Pashto poet (died 1688 A.D.) in a long elegy enumerates the Afghan kings and considers Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji (1290-1295 A.D.) to be a Ghalji of Wilayat (Afghanistan).

“Then Sultan Jalaluddin ascended the Delhi throne who was a Ghalji from Wilayat.”[31]

Afghans usually referred to the lands behind Khyber as Wilayat and the Indians referred to Khorasan and Afghanistan by this name. This shows that until the time of Khushal Khan the Khaljies were considered Afghans and not Turks.

6. Another reason which proves that the Khaljies are Afghans is an ancient book in which it is stated that the Pashto language (Afghani) is the language of the Khaljiya. Since Pashto is the language of the Pashtoons (Afghans) therefore the Khaljies are also Afghans.

A manuscript on the miracles of Sultan Sakhi Sarwar[32] (known as Lakhdata died 1181 A.D. and buried in Shah Kot of Dera Ghazi Khan) is written in Persian whose author is unknown. In this book the author relates a story from Tarikh-e Ghazna by Abu Hamid-al-Zawali and quotes Hasan Saghani.[33] “Kabul Shah, Khingil, who according to Yaqubi lived about 779 A.D.[34] sent a poem in the Khaljiya language to the Loyak of Ghazni.” Analysis of this poem shows that it is ancient Pashto which is said to have been the language of Khaljiya. This means that the Khalji spoke Pashto, and they are the present Afghan Ghaljies.

7. Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, well known as Fakhr-e Mudabir and author of Adab-al-Harb and other famous books, writing on the History of India (1205 A.D.) says that the armies of Sultan Qutb-ud-Din comprised of Turks, Ghori, Khorasani, Khalji and Indian soldiers.[35] This proves that in the beginning of the 7th century Hijera the Turks and Khaljies were two separate nationalities. If not so then they would not have been mentioned separately in the same sentence.

8. Until the time of Babur, the founder of the Indian Mughal dynasty the Ghalji of present Ghazna have been mentioned as Afghan Khalji and not as Turks. Babur says: “In 1507 A.D. we had ridden out of Kabul with the intention of over-running the country of Afghan Khaljies, northeast of Ghazni and brought back with us one hundred thousand head of sheep and other things.”[36]

Turk-Tarak Turuska

There are two reason as to why the Khaljies have been mistaken to be Turks:

First: The Sakas, Kushanids and Huns came to Bactria and Tukharistan and southern Hindu Kush from Trans Oxiana and they were desert dwelling Arians and their culture resembled that of Turks of Altai and western China. These people probably had cultural and linguistic similarities with the Turks. Since these people got mixed with the aborigines of Ariana (ancient Afghanistan), the Tajiks and the Pashtoons. According to Jahan Nama their language and color changed. Therefore, Barthold and some other oriental scholars considered the Pashto speaking Ghaljies to be descendants of these people. Even the name Abdali is related to these people and Awdal=Abdal has derived from Haftal=Yaftal. Classic writers have written this name as Euthalite. The tribes of Kafiristan (present Nuristan), northeast Hindu Kush also referred to Moslem Afghans as Odal up to the 19th century.[37] The Kabul Shahs of the 7th century whose titles and names were in Dari or Pashto were the descendants of the Dumi tribe of the Kushanids.[38]

The second reason is that in Arabic script the word Tarak and Turk resemble each other and since Turks were well-known among Arab writers from the early years of Islamic period, therefore, they considered Tarak of the Afghan Khaljies to be Turks from the Turkish race. While the Taraki Ghaljies are famous Afghan nomadic tribes whose number in the plains of Ghazni (according to Shahnama from their land there was a way to Hindustan) surpass 50,000. Until the present time these people move towards the valleys of the Indus and Tukharistan during winter. They possess large herds of sheep, speak Pashto and are true representatives of Afghan culture.

But the word Turushka, mentioned in Sanskrit works, has been used in different forms in Raja Tarangini. In first Tarangini, shlok 170, three Kushanid emperors have been considered to belong to the Turushka tribe. Paragraph 20 of another Indian work, Chavithakara, also deals with this issue the same way.[39] But in Rajaa Tarangini (vol. 2, p. 336) this word has been mentioned by Kalhana as the name of Muslim conquerors who were in war with the Kabul Shahs. Sir Aurel Stein says: “Undoubtedly, here Turushka means the Moslems. In 871 A.D. Saffarid Yaqub Layth captured Kabul and like the Arab conquerors attacked the remnants of Kabul Shah from Seistan and Rukhaj. Therefore the danger poised by Turushka, which Kalhans says, was from the south is not devoid of truth.[40]

From these facts it is evident that the Indian word Turushka, as was thought, not only meant a Turk but was also used to mean the Arabs, the Saffarids of Seistan and all those who attacked India and the Kabul Shah from the west. For example, Harasha, a Turushka king ruined all the temples and idols of Kashmir about of 495 A.D.[41] Discussing Samagram Raja (1003-1028 A.D.) in Tarangini 7 shlok 57 who was a contemporary of Subuktagin and Sultan Mahmud, the battles of Turushka Kammira conducted by Subuktagin or Amir Mahmud have been mentioned. This further means that Turushka was a word also applied to the conquerors from the west i.e. the Kushanids, Huns, Moslems and Turks. This word has also been inscribed in the Sanskrit inscription of Wihand, in which the carnivorous and mighty Huns have been called by this name.

The ancient Arians of the Vedic period who moved towards the east from Afghanistan called their soldiers Kshatria. This word (kash+tura) means a swordsman in Pashto. The title suits the warrior soldiers and the name of the Tarakay tribe is related to this same root. There are a number of other similar Afghan names of this type like Turman, Turyalay, Turkalanay with an initial tur+a suffix.

The word tura is widespread in a number of historical names like Turoyana, which according to the Vedas, was a king of the Pakht (Pashtoon) tribes. At present this world is used as turwahuney, meaning one who wields a sword. According to Kalhana, Turman was the name of a Kshatria king of Gandhara and in present usage also means a swordsman.

After reading the stated facts we can conclude that the Khaljies were Pashto speaking Taraks and not Turks. Confusion between the two words started in Arabic script from the early Islamic period.[42] Similarly, the Iranian word Turushka did not mean Turks but as a converted form of the Vedic Kshatria, which has been used in Pashto literature as tur kash, meaning those soldiers armed with swords. However, it must be added that several centuries after the advent of the Christian era, Afghan Khaljies intermingled with powerful Turks of the courts in battles and journeys, therefore they acquired Turkish names and customs. Thus authors had a right to confuse the two nationalities while there existed a confusion between the words Tarak (the Afghan Khalji tribe) and Turk also. Due to these facts a number of Turkish words have been used in Pashto from the time of the Kushanids and the Hepthalites (Huns) and have acquired a special Pashto form, like wulus (nation), jirgah (a council) kuk (meaning rhythm in Turkish), khan (a chieftain=hun) and tugh (flag) etc.

It must not be forgotten that Mahmud son of Husayn Kashghari, the Turkish scholar 1073 A.D., has denominated a special form for Khalj. He says that in the Samarqand battles with Alexander only 22 persons were left from the Turkish tribes. While walking with their families as men on foot they met two persons carrying loads on their backs and consulted them. They advised them as follows: “Alexander is a passer by and he is bound to leave and will not stay in this country, only we will remain.”

In Turkish they referred to these two persons “qal-aj” meaning that they remained and stayed. Therefore they became famous as Khalj and their successors were the two clans of Khaljies. Since thier character and mode resembled the Turks Alexander said they are Turkman, that is they resemble the Turks. Hence they are still referred to as Turkman. All Turkish tribes are composed of 22 clans but the two clans of Khaljies do not consider themselves to the Turkish.[43]

This denomination of Khalj and Turkman, in which Alexander was considered to be a Persian speaker, has the form of a fable and does not bear any historical evidence. But the fact that the Kushanids and Helthalites (Huns) were ruling over this land during the 7th and 8th centuries A.D. has been recorded in a number of historical and linguistic documents. Inscriptions also bear these facts. And that they have mingled racially and culturally with the Pashtoons is a very natural phenomenon.

Since the Kushanid and Yaftali tribes had a number of Turkish cultural and linguistic elements instilled among them and the Turharian Tigins ruled over the south and north of the Hindu Kush, until the beginning of the Islamic period, and Zabulistan (the present land of the Khaljies) was considered the center of the Hepthalites, bearing the title of Zabul Shah, it is possible that they married and got mixed with the Khalji mountain dwelling people. In this process they accepted the linguistic and cultural effects on one another. For example the word Bag (meaning God, king or great) which has a deep root in Sanskrit and Avesta was usually inscribed on the Achamenian, Sassanid, Kushanid and Yaftali inscriptions and coins. In Turkish it was entered in the form of Bag (meaning an emperor or king).[44] On the other hand on the inscription of the Yaftali period, in Jaghatu of Ghazni, the Turkish title of Ulugh has been written with the name of a king in cursive Greek script and we know that Ulugh also means Bag or great. The names of most Khaljies and even other Afghans are Turkish like Qaraqush (a hawk), Balka (sage), Sanqur (falcon) etc.[45] Previously we discussed a number of Pashto words bearing Turkish roots.

On the separation of the Khalji=Ghalji, Minhaj Siraj’s statement is worth consideration in which he says: “Sultan Jalaluddin Khwarazm Shah and Malik Khan of Heart reached Ghaznayn and a large army of Turks, and rulers of Ghor, Tajik, Khalji and Ghori gathered at their service.”[46] Here Minhaj Siraj mentions the Turks and Khalj as two separate entities. Juwaini, in Tarikh-e Jahankusha also speaks about the presence of Khalji in the battle of Parwan and the defeat of the Genghis army.[47]

In the common usage of the people of Khorasan the word Khalji was pronounced with a (ghein) as Ghalji. Even today in Afghanistan this mode of pronunciation is widespread. We also have historical proof for this statement: the oriental branch of the Moscow Academy of Sciences has printed in Arabic Al-Tarikh-ul-Mansuri of Mohammad son of Ali Hamawi from a unique manuscript in photographic form in which the supporters of Khwarazm Shah have been continuously referred to as Qalji.[48] Since in western Khorasan and Iran (ghein) is pronounced as (qaf) qiran as ghiran and Quran as Ghuran, therefore, they converted Ghalji to Qalji and if they would have heard this word in the form of Khalji they would have written it in its original form, because these people do not convert (khe) to (Qaf).

Now after all these details we can conclude that Khaljies belong to the present Ghalji tribes of Zabul of Afghanistan, whose original name in Pashto was Gharzay meaning kohzad or mountaineer. Thus Gharzay was converted to Ghalji or Khalji in the historical records of Afghanistan and India.




[1] The Chronicles of Pathan Kings, p. 7, Delhi 1967.

[2] Cambridge History of India. 3/61.

[3] Tarkikh-e Firishta, p. 162.

[4] Qasr-e A’rifan. P. 341, published in Lahore 1965.

[5] Tarikh-e Hindustan, Vol. 9.

[6] Tabaqat-e Naseri, I/422.

[7] Istakhri has mentioned these Khalk in the province of Helmand, p. 245.

[8] Mu’jan-ul-Buldan. 2/381.

[9] Hindustan as seen by Panini by Dr. Agrawala, Lucknow University, 1953.

[10] See Tarikh-e Farishta.

[11] Notes of Tabaye-ul-Haywan, 18.

[12] Tabaqate-e Nasiri 1/387, Habibi edition.

[13] Hudud-ul-Alam in which the word Khalj has been misinterpreted as Khalkh by the calligrapher and published that way.

[14] Tabakat-e Nasiri after 1/422.

[15] Al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik, 28.

[16] Masalik-ul-Mamalik of Istakhri, 245.

[17] Minorsky’s commentary on Hudud-ul-Alam, 347 from Iranshahar of Marquart after 251.

[18] In the original source Kanjina has been written incorrectly. In Bayhaqi it is Kapchi and in Tabaqat-e Nasiri Kochi and the Arabs have converted it to Qufs. In the appendages to the Shahnama it has been written Koch and at present this word is Kochi in Afghanistan. This word is a remnant of the name of Koshi=the Koshan of the first century B.C.

[19] Mafatih-ul-Ulum, 72.

[20] Tarikh-e Yamini, 26.

[21] Al-Kamil 8/348, Ibn-ul-Athir writes in Al-Kamil:L Yaqub Layth conquered Khaljiya and Zabul.

[22] Minorsky’s comments on Hudud-al-Alam, 348.

[23] Old Persian 165 and Sabk Shinasi by Bahar 2/67.

[24] Kabul by Alexander Burns, 190. London.

[25] Raja Tarangini 4/179, Tanslated by Sir Aurel Stein, London 1900, and India of Bohler 2/206.

[26] Divan Lughat-ul-Turk 3/307, Istanbul, 1915.

[27] Divant Lughat-ul-Turk, photographic publication p. 4-41.

[28] Jahan Nama, 73.

[29] Zia Barani’s Tarikh-e Ferozshahi, 173. Calcutta.

[30] Tazkira-e Bahaduran-e Islam, 2/331.

[31] Divan of Khushal Khan 669, Kandahar.

[32] For the biography of this saint refer to Khazinat-ul-Asfiya 2/248 and Ab-e Kawtbar by Shaikh Ikram p. 91 onwards.

[33] Born in Lahore 1181, died 1252 A.D.

[34] Tarikh-al-Yaqubi 2/131.

[35] Introduction to the History of Mubarak Shah, 33. London, 1927.

[36] Tuzuk-e Babur 127, Bombay.

[37] Charles Mason, narrative of various journeys in Baluchistan and Afghanistan. 1/232, London 1842.

[38] A new research on the Kabulshahan, p. 30, Kabul 1969.

[39] Aurel Stien’s comments on Raja Tarangini 1/30.

[40] Aurel Stein’s comments on Raja Tarangini after 336.

[41] Raja Tarangini. 7 shlok, 1095.

[42] Between 651-709 A.D. historians speak about Nizak rulers in Badghis, Merv and north of Kabul who have minted coins stating NYCHKMLKA in Pahlavi. These people or family have also been considered Turks while in the coins belonging to them Shah (o) Taraka Nisaga, with two short As of Taraka is evident (R. Ghirshman’s book on the Chinites=Hepthalites, p. 23 printed in Cairo in 1948). The word Taraka with two short As bears complete resemblance with the Afghan name Tarak.

[43] Diwn-ul-Lughat-ul-Turk 3/307.

[44] Diwan-ul-Lughat-ul-Turk 3/116.

[45] Refer to Tabaqat-e-Nasiri. Vol. 2. The Khalji kings in India.

[46] Tabaqat-e Nasiri 2/259.

[47] Jahan Kusha of Juwayni 2/194.

[48] Al-Tarikh-ul-Mansuri 140.

Khalaji's during early Delhi Sultanate era were not Afghans, Khalaj is listed as a Turkic language:
Turkic languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The wiki page is much more neutral, authentic and believable than the above Afghan nationalistic piece describing Khalaj people as Pashto speaking Afghans:
Khilji dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Khilji dynasty (Persian: سلسله خلجی‎; Hindi: सलतनत ख़िलजी) or Khalji was a Muslim dynasty of Turkic[2] origin which ruled large parts of South Asia between 1290 and 1320.[3] It was founded by Jalal ud din Firuz Khilji and became the second dynasty to rule the Delhi Sultanate of India. Under Ala-ud-din Khilji, the Khiljis became known for successfully defending against the repeated Mongol invasions of India.[4][5]

Origins
The Khilji rulers trace their roots to Central Asia and were of Turkic origin.[6] They had long been settled in what is now Afghanistan before proceeding to Delhi inIndia. The name "Khilji" refers to an Afghan village or town known as Qalat-e Khilji (Fort of Ghilzai).[7] Sometimes they were treated by others as ethnic Afghans due to their adoption of some Afghan habits and customs.[8][9] As a result of this, sometimes the dynasty is referred to as a Turko-Afghan.[10][11][12][13] The three sultans of the Khalji dynasty were noted by historians for their faithlessness and ferocity.[6]

Ikhtiar Uddin Muhammad bin Bakhtiar Khilji was a servant of Qutb-ud-din Aibak, who was an ex-slave of the Ghurids with a Turkic background.[14] Mohammad Khilji was an Indo-Ghurid Shah (king) and founder of the Delhi Sultanate, which conquered Bihar and Bengal in the late 12th century. From this time, the Khiljis became servants and vassals of the Mamluk dynasty of Delhi. From 1266 until his death in 1290, the Sultan of Delhi was called Ghiyas ud din Balban,[15]another servant of Qutab-ud-din Aybak. Balban's immediate successors, however, were unable to manage either the administration or the factional conflicts between the old Turkic nobility and the new forces led by the Khaljis. After a struggle between the two factions, Jalal ud din Firuz Khilji was installed as sultan by a noble faction of Turkic, Persian, Arabic and Indian-Muslim aristocrats at the collapse of the last Mumluk sultan, Kay-Qubadh. Their rise to power was aided by outsiders (some of them Indian-born Muslims) who might enhance their positions if the hold of the followers of Balban and the "Forty" (the members of the royal Loya Jirga) were broken. Jalal-ud-din was old, and for a time he was so unpopular that he dared not enter the capital because his tribe was thought to be close to the nomadic Afghans. During his short reign (1290–96), some of Balban's officers revolted due to this assumption of power; Jalal-ud-din suppressed them, led an unsuccessful expedition against Ranthambhor and defeated a Mongol force on the banks of the Sind River in central India.

Alauddin Khilji, his nephew and son-in-law, was ordered by his father[citation needed] to lead an expedition of between 4,000 and 7,000 men into the Hindu Deccan (where many rulers had refused to submit) and capture Ellichpur and its treasure. Upon his return in 1296 (having gained status and power) he killed his uncle.[16]

Alauddin reigned for 20 years and is considered the greatest member of the dynasty. He captured Ranthambhor (1301) andChittorgarh (1303), conquered Māndu (1305) and captured the wealthy Hindu state of Devagiri,[17] also repelling two Mongol raids. Alauddin's lieutenant, Malik Kafur (a Muslim Indian), was sent on an expedition to the south in 1308 which led to the capture of Warangal, the overthrow of the Hoysala Empire south of the Krishna River and the occupation of Madura in the south.[17] Malik Kafur returned to Delhi in 1311. The empire fell into political decadence, and the sultan died in early 1316; Malik Kafur’s attempted to become the sultan but was killed. The last Khalji (Qutb ud din Mubarak Shah) was murdered in 1320 byKhusraw Khan. Power was then assumed by Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq, the first ruler of the Turkic Tughluq dynasty.

Position in Turkic Indian society
The Khilji Turks were not recognized by the older nobility as coming from a pure Turkic stock, even in Singam and Kuselan (since they had intermarried with non-Turks: Indians, Afghans (Pashtun) and Arab Bedouins); their customs and manners were seen as different from those of other Turks. Although they had played a role in the success of the Turkic armies in India, they had always been looked down upon by the leading Turks (the dominant group during the Slave dynasty). This tension between the Khiljis and other Turks (kept in check by Balban) surfaced in the following reign, and ended in the displacement of the Ilbari Turks.[18]

Khalji people
Further information: Ghilzai
Before their expansion into India, the Khalji people were mainly concentrated in Turkestan.[19][20][21] In the writings of Al-Biruni,Ibn-Batuta, Ibn-Khaldun, Al-Khwarezmi, Masudi, Varahamihira and in Hudud al-'alam, they are presented as a group of Turkic origin which formed one of the older members of the Hephthalite confederation, and included many nomads near Bactria (inTurfan) and east of modern Ghazni. Many migrated to various parts of Persia, including to parts of what are now Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, then under the control of the Ghaznavids.[22] In Iran they migrated mainly to Pars, where they settled an isolated region which is called today Khaljistan ("land of Khaljis"). However, Persian-speakers in Iran also used the term Khalji to describe nomads of Turkic background in their country.[22] The Khaljis began to become Pashtunized (Afghanized) since the 8th century and later known as Ghilzais, part of the Pashtun ethnic group.[23]
("Ghilzay". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2012-12-03. "They are reputed to be descended at least in part from the Khalaj or Khilji Turks, who entered present Afghanistan in the 10th century...")

The official and court language of the Khilji dynasty was Perso-Arabic.[1] The co-existence of different languages gave birth to an early form of Urdu.

Propagation of Islam
According to the 14th century scholar Ibn Batuta, the Khilji dynasty encouraged conversion to Islam by making it customary to have the convert presented to the sultan (who would place a robe on him and reward him with gold bracelets).[24] During Ikhtiyar Uddin Bakhtiyar Khilji's control of Bengal, Muslim missionaries in India achieved their greatest success in the number of converts to Islam.[25]"

Alat tribe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alat (Ala-at, Ala, Alachin, Alagchin, Alchin, Alchi, Alayundu ("piebald horse"); Chinese Boma 駁馬 "piebald horse", Bi-la, Helai 賀賴, Helan 賀蘭, Heloγ, Hela, Arabic Khalaj and Khalaches, Bactrian Xalaso,) are one of the salient Turkic tribes known from Chinese annals, Bactrian inscriptions,[1] and Arab and Persian medieval geographers as a prominent tribe that played a distinguished role in the history of Eurasia. In "Tang huiyao" the Alat tamga is depicted as [2] The modern Alats live in Russia in the Altai, Kazakhstan, Turkey, eastern section of the Iranian plateau, India, and Afghanistan, they are known as Alats, Alachins, Alayundu, Khalaj, and Khalaches.

Literature on Alats is very rich, Alats were a subject of study by Tangshu, Jiu Tangshu, Tang Huiyao, N.Ya. Bichurin, S.E.Malov, N.A.Aristov, G.E.Grumm-Grjimailo, Yu.Nemeth, G.Hоworth, P. Pelliot, L Hambis, and others.

Name
In ancient Türkic lexicon the meaning of "skewbald" (horse) is expressed with the terms ala, alagchin, still active now in composite expressions. The Chinese transcription for Alachins E-lo-chji is the earliest transmission for the Alat tribe within the Kazakh Junior Juz and parts of Uzbeks. During the Tang time, the Chinese chroniclers used a Chinese version for "skewbald horses", Boma.[3]

History
Southern Huns in China
Tongdian states that around 349-370 CE a leader of Southern Huns Heloγ Tou (i.e. Alat Tou), with a title Shanyu, brought his tribe of 35 thousand people to the Former Yan Xianbei state and submitted to its dynasty. The Shanyu Helai Toy was bestowed a title of General Pacifying the West, and settled in the Daizong district. It adds that apparently, the tribe Yanto are their descendants. Yanto lived intermixed with tribe Se[disambiguation needed], therefore they are called Se-yanto (Pin. Xueyantuo), that surname of Kagan clan was Ili-tu, that from generation to generation Se-yanto were a strong tribe, and that Se-yanto was a Tele (Pin. Tiele) tribe.[4] Fang Xuanling inJin Shu stated that Helai (Alats) were one of 19 tribes of the Southern Hun Shanyu.[5]

Hephthalites
According to the Chinese annals, the home of the Eastern Hun tribe Alat was in the basin of the Narym River. From the Alat tribe originated one of the Eastern Hun Shanuys called Helog Tou, i.e. Alat Tou, most likely named after his maternal tribe. Under Arabicized name Khalajes, Alats are known to constitute one of the major tribes of the 5th-6th century CE Hephthalites.[6] Tangshu tells about Alats: "They are north from the Türks, 14,000 li from the Chinese capital. They follow grass and water, but mostly live in the mountains. Their standing army is 30,000 men. There is always snow, and foliage does not fall down. They plough fields with horses. All horses are skewbald colors, therefore the state is also given the same name. They live in the north near a sea. Though they have horses, they do not ride them, but use their milk for food. They are frequently at war with Kirgizes". Jiu Tangshu mentions a tribe of skewbald horses among Basmyls, Kirguts, Tuhsi, etc., who in 638 submitted to the Western Türkic Torok-kagan Du-lu ke-han. Tundyan cites as a comment a fragment from an unknown composition that "Tu-jüe (Türks) call the skewbald horses e-la (а-la), and the state is also called "e-la".[3]

Middle Ages
From the story of Abulgazi and description of two Mongolian embassies (in 1233 and 1254) to Alachins, they lived along Yenisei, the sources of Angara, and the east coast of lake Baikal, called by the Chinese chroniclers "Northern sea". Based on annalistic traditions, the author of the "Family tree of Türks" Abulgazi described the country of skewbald horses: "A multitude of Tatar tribes coached along the banks of the Angara-muren, which runs east of the Kirgiz country and runs into the sea. On the seacoast at the estuary of this river is a large city surrounded by settlements where live nomadic tribes in large numbers. Their horses are large... All of them are skewbald in hue, there are no others. Near that city called Alakchin was a silver spring, therefore all caldrons, dishes, and vases were from silver. It is that country that the Uzbeks mean when say: "there is a country where all horses are skewbald, and the stoves are from gold".[3] The Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan.[7]A Khilji dynasty of Turko-Afghan Khalaj origin ruled large parts of South Asia from 1290 to 1320, they were the second Muslim dynasty to rule the Delhi Sultanate ofIndia, they are noted in history for repeatedly defeating the warring Mongols and thereby saving India from plundering raids and attacks.[8]

Modern time
After the Russian revolution in 1917, Alats (Kazakh: Alaş), named after a legendary founder of the Kazakh people, headed a movement of the Turkestan peoples for independence, and created a functioning state of the Kazakh people known as Alash Autonomy that operated between December 13, 1917 and August 26, 1920, controlling roughly the territory of the present day Republic of Kazakhstan, with a capital in Alash-qala (modern Semey). The Alash leaders in December 1917 proclaimed establishment of Alash Orda, a Kazakh government, aligned with the Russian White Army and fought against the Bolsheviks.

In 1919, when the White forces were losing, Alash Autonomous government began negotiations with the Bolsheviks. In 1919–20 Bolsheviks defeated the White Russian forces in the region and occupied Kazakhstan. On August 26, 1920, the new Soviet government disbanded the Alash Autonomy, and established the "Kyrgyz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic", later the name was changed in 1925 to "Kazak Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" and changed again in 1936 to "Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic". However, the movement for independence continued, and it continued until 1925, when the war for independence was finally extinguished

Modern demographics
Alats are one of the main components of the Turkish people known under the name Alayundu which means "spotted horses", they live in central Turkey. As of 2000, approximately 42,000 speakers of the Khalaj language lived in Iran, per ISO 639-3 their language ia called Turkic Khalaj, to distinguish it from the Indo-Iranian "Khalaj" language. In the Causacus, in Armenia and Azerbaijan are a number of settlements with the name ascending to the Alats, they also are in Uzbekistan and Tatarstan, and in the form Kalat in Khorasan. In Afghanistan, Alats are known as one of the largest Pashtun tribes, the Ghilzais, they were pasturing at the Gazni plateau. In India, Alats are called Ghalzae. In Khorasan, Alats are called Kalat, they are Alats and Alaş in Kazakhstan, and Alats and Alachins in Altai in Russia.[9]

Linguistic distinction
Principal linguistic work on Alat langiage (Khalaj in modern Iran) was done by Gerhard Doerfer, who posited a non-Oguz classification based on specific features such as preservation of three vowel lengths, preservation of word-initial *h, and lack of the sound change *d > y. An example of these features is the word hadaq ("foot"), which has preserved the initial *h and medial *d, versus the Oguz form ayaq. Therefore Alat is an independent language that became distinct very early from the Oguz Turkic languages.[10][11] Because of these distinct features, scholars speculated that the Alat (Khalaj) is a descendant of the Ogur branch of the Turkic family, but there is no firm scholarly consensus on its affinities.

 

[Samandri]

@kalu_miah your wikipedia copy pasting would be thrown at your face in any academics. Wikipedia-boys are not welcomed in this thread.

 

[kalu_miah]

Are you Bangladeshi descendant of Khijli's?

Turks, Mongols and a Persian Secretarial Class in Early Delhi Sultanate
Note the OP article written by Sunil Kumar, Delhi University, Professor of History
History is Sunil Kumar's profession, for me history is something of interest. I don't need to be a Khalaji descendant to be interested in history. Many migrants moved to Bangladesh landmass during Muslim rule 1200-1757 and there are millions of their descendants today, some of whom could be descended from the Khalaji soldiers. I don't know if I am one of them:
Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration

@kalu_miah your wikipedia copy pasting would be thrown at your face in any academics. Wikipedia-boys are not welcomed in this thread.

Yes, I agree, only the article you posted has no link, can you post a link and credential of the writer?

 

[Samandri]

Karrani dynasty of Bengal
Karrani sultanate of Bengal
Daud Khan Karrani
Bayazid Karrani
Sulieman khan karrani[/url]

 

[kalu_miah]

cross posted:
Rise of Islam in Bengal, role of migration | Page 13

Present day Ghilzai's have nothing much to do with Turkic Khalaj people. But that is not the debate here, the debate is about Khalaj tribe and their origin whether they were Turkic or not. @Marwat Khan Lodhi is saying Khalaj was originally a Pashtun tribe, I am saying this is incorrect, they were originally a Turkic tribe and their branches still speak that Turkic Khalaj language, settled in many places, other than Afghanistan, such as Iran, Azerbaijan, Southern Russia and Turkey (post #182 and 184 above, also see links below). I do not believe they were originally Pashtun or Iranic like Marwat is suggesting according to this article, which I believe is full of conjectures:
Khaljies are Afghan

It is possible they were part of Hepthalite confederation, but they were a Turkic and nomadic part of that confederation:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/southasianarchaeology/Hepthalites.pdf
Scythians subsets: Kushans, Hephthalites, Sakas, Gujjars, and Parthians
Talessman's Atlas - Hephthalites
(search for Khalaj in these pages)

This video About page also has a very detailed description of Khalaj tribe history and their Turkic origin.

Khilji dynasty
"The Khalji people
Before expansion into India, the Khaljis were mainly concentrated in Turkestan. In the writings of Al-Biruni, Ibn-Batuta, , Al-Khwarezmi, Masudi, Varahamihira, and in Juzjani's Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib, they are presented as a group of Turkic origin which formed one of the older members of the Hephthalite confederation, and included many nomads near Bactria, in Turfan (Turkestan) and eastward of modern Ghazni. Many migrated to Iran, and possibly also to Armenia, Iraq, Anatolia, Turkmenistan, thePunjab and what are now modern Pakistan and Afghanistan, especially around the Sulaiman Mountains, then under the control of the Ghaznavids (see also the article on the Ghalzais). In Iran, they migrated mainly to Pars, where they settled an isolated region which is called today as Khaljistan - Land of Khaljis. However, Persian-speakers in Iran also use the term Khalji to describe any nomads of Turkic background in their country. The Khilji people of Iran and Afghanistan, the Ghilzai, and the of Bengal and Sindh claim to be descendants of medieval Khilji clans, though they have intermarried greatly with other groups and many share few physical similarities with the original Khiljis. Most modern Khilji people and tribes have very few cultural links with the original Turkic tribe, except for the Khiljis of Iran and Afghanistan, who speak a Khalaj dialect of the Khalaj language group. Modern Khalji people are not more comparable to the past Khalji tribes who were of pure Turkic stock. For example in the case of India, modern Khalji people became ethnic Indians and lost their east-Asian features and their Turkic identity. In Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, they are either of hybrid origin or in the case of Turkmen Khalji tribe they kept Turks but became cultural Iranians and Indians. Because of this fact, most of modern Khalji people and tribes have no more ties or any kind of an identity that trace them intentional to the Turks, except for the Khaljis of Iran and Afghanistan."

Khilji dynasty information
"Origin of the Khalji people
It seems, that the larger Khilji tribe was once member of Hephthalites of central Asia who also conquered -invaded- India. Originally, the Khaljis were mainly dwelling in Turkestan, except in some casesE.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936, p. 326Eran, Land zwischen Tigris und Indus, 1879, p. 268The Pathans: 550 B.C.-A.D. 1957,by Olaf Kirkpatrick Caroe or members of ancient Gökturks. In older scripts of Al-Biruni, Al-Khwarezmi, Masudi, in Juzjani's Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib and of Arab and Indian historians (Ibn Batuta, Ibn Khaldun or Vahara Mihira etc.) they are considered as one of the original (in the sense of real) members of the Hephtalite's confederation and of Turkic origin who are also found as nomads near Bactria, in Turfan (Turkestan) and east-ward of modern Ghazni in Afghanistan. Possibly, they have split themselves from these large area up and moved to Iran, Armenia, Iraq, Anatolia, Turkmenistan, Punjab) and modern Pakistan and Afghanistan, around the Sulaiman Mountains under the GhaznavidsThe Cambridge History of Iran, 1968, p.217 by William Bayne Fisher, Ehsan Yarshater, Ilya Gershevitch and Richard Nelson (see also on Ghalzais). In Iran, they moved to Pars where they settled an isolated region which is called today as Khaljistan - Land of Khaljis. However, Persians of Iran use the term Khalji also to describe nomads of Turkic background in their country. Also in in the Kohistan district of Pakistan, there is a place called after the Khiljis. The Khilji people of Iran and Afghanistan, the Ghilzai (also called Khaldjish) fraction of the Pashtuns, the Khaldji people of Bengal and Sindh are considered as descendants of ancient and middle-age Khalji (sub-)tribes. However, modern Khalji people are not more comparable to the past Khalji tribes who were of pure Turkic stock. For example in the case of India, modern Khalji people became ethnic Indians and lost their east-Asian features and their Turkic identity. In Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, they are either of hybrid origin or in the case of Turkmen Khalji tribe they kept Turks but became culturally Iranians and South Asian. Because of this fact, most of modern Khalji people and tribes have no more ties or any kind of an identity that trace them intentional to the Turks, except for the Khaljis of Iran and Afghanistan, who speak a Khalaj dialect of the Khalaj language group.

Cultural achievements and religious propagation
The main court language of Khiljis became Persian, followed by Arabic and their own native Turkoman language and some of north-Indian dialects. Even if it was not related with their nature as original nomads and had no ties with urbane cultures and civilizations, the Khilji of Delhi promoted Persian language to a high degree. Such a co-existence of different languages gave birth to the earliest and archaic version of Urdu. According to Ibn Batuta, the Khiljis encouraged conversion to Islam by making it a custom to have the convert presented to the Sultan who would place a robe on the convert and award him with bracelets of gold.The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith By Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, pg. 212 During Ikhtiyar Uddin Bakhtiyar Khilji's control of the Bengal, Muslim missionaries in India achieved their greatest success, in terms of number of converts to Islam.The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith By Sir Thomas Walker Arnold, pg. 227-228"

During 1221 Mongol invasion, many Khalajes joined the Mongols. Some Mongols claim part descent from Khalaj:

Kharchin Mongols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Kharchin were originated from the Kipchak guard troops served in Khanbalik or Dadu (today's Beijing, great capital of Yuan empire) and other Chinese areas, and also the Kipchak royal horse herder groups in the present Khovd Province and its neighborhood areas of Mongolia. The Kipchaks got the name of Kharchin because their horse herders were famous for their tribute of horse milk wine to Yuan emperors, the Kharchin originally means people who brew black horse milk wine. Some scholars also argues that the Kharchins were originated at least partly from the Khalaj of the historical Khorasan area in today's Iran and Afghanistan, who were a sub-group of the Oghuz or Arghu Turks. The Kharchin's Bolai Tayisi was the successor of Arugtai Tayisi, he recovered the power of the eastern Mongols against the Oirads."

The ethnic origins of the Kharchin Mongols - History Forum ~ All Empires
"Asud, Kharchin and Sharnud were known as the Huuchin or old Kharchin, who were the core tribes of the Yunsheebuu Tumen. The Asuds were originated from the Yuan Empire's royal guard troops of the Alans, the Asud's Arugtai Tayisi could be recognized as the first leader of the Yunsheebuu-Kharchin tribal alliance and one of the most important leaders during the Northern Yuan dynasty. The Kharchins were originated from the Kipchak guard troops served in Khanbalik or Dadu(today's Beijing, great capital of Yuan empire) and other Chinese areas, and also the Kipchak royal horse herder groups in the present Khovd province and its neighborhood areas of Mongolia. The Kipchaks got the name of Kharchin because their horse herders were famous for their tribute of horse milk wine to Yuan emperors, the Kharchin originally means people who brew black horse milk wine. Some scholars also argues that the Kharchins were originated at least partly from the Khalaj of the historical Khoransan area in today's Iran and Afghanistan, who were a sub-group of the Oghuz or Arghu Turks. The Kharchin's Bolai tayisi was the successor of Arugtai tayisi, he recovered the power of the eastern Mongols against the Oirads. There's no the exact clues for the origins of the Sharnuud yet, but Yunsheebuu Tumen's Sharnuud shouldn't be simply considered as yellow-head Uriankhai or others, while there're so many tribes like Uriankhai, Naiman and Buryat, that consisted of such a clan of the Sharnuud, even some of the Mongolized Uigurs were named as the Sharnuud too. The name of Sharnuud may suggest their non-Mongoloid physical characters, Yunsheebuu's Sharnuud seems some European looking group followed with the Alans and Kipchaks to serve for the Yuan court in Khanbalik(Dadu)."[/quote]

 

[Kabira]

Let me do more reserach on Khilji people to determine their stock.

 

[Samandri]

@kalu_miah i just shared a piece of article, i may not agree with it 100%. The issue is not whether khilji were turks, hepthalites or some thing else, you made a very big claim that ghilzais have nothing to do with khiljis. I remember you said you trust encyclopedia of islam and westren scholar boswarth in the matter of ghorids. Both are asserting that ghilzais are khiljis. I challenged you to prove that ghilzais have nothing to do with khiljis, you went silent. Open a thread and explain to us why ghilzais have nothing to do with khiljis

 

[kalu_miah]

@kalu_miah i just shared a piece of article, i may not agree with it 100%. The issue is not whether khilji were turks, hepthalites or some thing else, you made a very big claim that ghilzais have nothing to do with khiljis. I remember you said you trust encyclopedia of islam and westren scholar boswarth in the matter of ghorids. Both are asserting that ghilzais are khiljis. I challenged you to prove that ghilzais have nothing to do with khiljis, you went silent. Open a thread and explain to us why ghilzais have nothing to do with khiljis

No, I never said that, what I said was that I doubt that Ghilzai's have much to do with Khalaj's. No historian claims that Ghilzai's are Khalaj, please show us links and quotes where they say this. What many historians believe is that it is possible that some Khalaj genetic contribution is possible in Ghilzai Pashtun. But Khalaj was essentially a Turkic tribe of nomadic warriors that settled down in Qalat-e-Khilji or Garmsir area some centuries before Delhi Sultanate and they may have mixed with local Afghans as is natural with any migrants. Such nomadic mounted warriors were in hot demand at the time of Muslim conquest of South Asia and during the fights between Delhi Sultanate and Mongol armies. These Khalaj'es were employed by both armies fighting each other. And I found evidence that some of these Khalaj's ended up even in Mongolia, joining Mongol tribal confederation, today they are called Kharchin Mongols. Please look at my previous post. So it is very much possible that not much Khalaj's remained in Afghanistan after those time period, as they spread to different parts of Delhi Sultanate or Mongol Empire as mounted warrior soldiers, seeking better fortune for themselves and their families.
http://philoshistorydepartment.weeb..._jackson__cambridge_university_press_1999.pdf
(use "khalaj" as search word to see related material on Khalaj, it is mentioned in 42 places in above article)

"The Ghuris were a people of the hills. Traditionally they fought on foot, and Juzjani has left us a description of their characteristic method of warfare, which involved the use by each soldier of a protective screen called a karwa, made of raw bullock-hide and filled with a dense wadding of cotton.23 It is true that we also encounter mounted Ghuri warriors, like the 1200 horsemen from Tulak who briefly garrisoned Tabarhindh following Mu'izz al-Din's first invasion of the eastern Panjab;24 but they were probably in short supply, and the sultans' expansionist designs required access to larger numbers of cavalry. As the empire expanded to the west, they supplemented their forces with warriors from various parts of Khurasan:
Khurasanls are found under Mu'izz al-DIn's banner, for instance, in the final thrust against the Ghaznawids and in his assault on Prthviraja, and later among the troops who entered Lahore with Aybeg in 602/1206.25In addition, Ghuzz warriors appear in the army of Ghazna in the period following Mu'izz al-Din's death, and the Ghurid sultans, like their Ghaz-nawid precursors, recruited tribal cavalry from among the Khalaj, a nomadic people in the garmsir ('hot') regions of Bust and Zamindawar, who may have been of Turkish stock but would in time become assimilated to the neighbouring Afghans.26 Only late authors mention the Afghans proper, who were as yet confined to the Sulayman range (consequently known at this time as kuh-i Afghan, 'the Afghan mountains') and who had accompanied Ghaznawid campaigns, as serving at Tara'in.27"
......
"The Ghurid dynasty grew familiar with the disadvantages of relying exclusively on such forces. The nomads were proverbially volatile. When Ala' al-Din Husayn 'Jahansuz' did battle with Sanjar in 547/1152, the issue was decided by some 6000 Khalaj, Ghuzz and other Turkish nomads in his army who went over to the Seljuk Sultan. (these Khalaj's could be ancestors of Khalaj's found in Anatolia today). For Mu'izz al-Din, even the Ghuris did not prove invariably trustworthy. During his first Tara'in campaign, according to Ibn al-Athlr, his Ghuri troops left him in the lurch, for which the commanders were severely disciplined; and he continued to harbour resentment against them for some years.28 Such considerations, as well as the numerous precedents furnished by other Muslim dynasties, may have encouraged the later Ghurids to amass bodies of Turkish ghulams. Turkish slaves appear at Ghiyath al-Din's court at an early date, and JuzjanI tells us that Muizz al-Din was especially keen to acquire them.29 Despite insubordination on the part of one or two ghulam officers in India in the wake of the sultan's defeat at Andkhud in 601/1204, his confidence was in large measure justified. At Andkhud Mu'izz al-Din's personal slaves remained with him in the thick of the conflict, and it was one of them who at length virtually carried him from the field for the sultan's own safety.30 Professor Irfan Habib has shown how he took care to promote his ghulams (called 'Mu'izzis', from his own laqab) particularly to administrative and military office in his own territories, Ghazna and India, in contrast with the older Ghurid lands.31"
.......
"One source of recruitment that was certainly available to Muizz al-Din was the Khalaj. We know that they were not necessarily light cavalry: the small force with which Muhammad b. Bakhtiyar stormed into the city of Bihar consisted of two hundred heavily armed (bar-gustuwan) horsemen. The bands of Khalaj tribesmen. who had flocked to join him only a few
years after the overthrow of Prthviraja are expressly said to have come 'from the direction of Hindustan' (i.e. the Doab and Awadh), indicating at least that they were not newcomers to India.59"
.....
"Turks, Tajiks and Khalaj1
Turks and military slavery
Tabaqa 22 of Juzjani's work comprises biographies of twenty-five Shams! ghulams. Although the chronicler does not specify slave status in every case, his usage of the word 'Turk' suggests that for him it had come to denote simply a Turkish slave (see appendix I). Already, during Iltutmish's reign, a few of these amirs had been granted Turkish titles that included the element khan - not borne, it should be noted, by Ghuri or Tajik notables and thus representing an innovation.2 But a significant proportion of the twenty five attained high office only some time after their master's death. The future Sultan Balaban, as Juzjani's own patron and viceroy (na'ib) to the reigning monarch, receives the longest biography. The list of ghulams represented by the biographies is also, of course, far from exhaustive; both here and elsewhere in the Tabaqat other slaves of Iltutmish, who are not accorded biographies of their own, are brought to our notice. The pronounced slant of tabaqa 22 towards Turkish slave officers serves to obscure an important fact. At no point did Turkish ghulams enjoy the monopoly of rank and office that they seem to have exercised in Mamluk Egypt. One important difference was the opportunities for advancement available to the offspring of ghulams in the Delhi Sultanate. This was not the case in Egypt, where the sons of mamluks - the awlad al-nas - were deliberately excluded from the highest positions in the state.3 In India Turkish ghulams also had to share power with other, non-servile groups. These included not only free Turkish nobles, Khalaj, Ghuris, Tajiks and (from Balaban's reign) Mongols, but also other slave elements, both black African (Habashi, literally 'Abyssinian')4 and Indian. Although JuzjanI mentions Hindu infantrymen, palks,5 as serving in Muslim campaigns, it is not until Balaban's reign that we read of them forming a royal guard; and they came to play a more prominent role only in the Khalji era. Afghan troops, lastly, were part of the military establishment of the thirteenth-century Sultanate, though appearing only fitfully in the sources.6

It is impossible to document the training of the Sultanate's Turkish slaves, as has been done for Mamluk Egypt, or to compose a survey of the slave contingents, of the kind that Professor Edmund Bosworth has produced for the Ghaznawids.7 As we might guess even without Juzjani's occasional references, the accomplishments especially valued were equestrian skills and marksmanship.8 But other skills were not unknown, for Aybeg had received instruction from his first master in reciting the Qur'an and was accordingly known as Qur'an-khwan.9 The sources do not usually tell us at what point a slave was manumitted. JuzjanI alleges that on Mu'izz al-Din's death both Aybeg and Yildiz requested manumission from the new sultan of Ghur. According to the same author Iltutmish had even prior to this been freed by Aybeg on Mucizz al-Din's express instructions, and Ibn Battuta later heard a story that he showed his deed of manumission to the jurists of Delhi when he became sultan.10 We learn from Barani alone that Balaban had been freed at some point prior to his accession.11 Slaves of the reigning sultan bore the designation 'Sultani'.12 Whether or not there was a recognizable cursus honorum is unclear. The information we are given concerning the twenty-five Shamsi slaves reveals diverse ethnic and geographical origins. Only one was apparently an Indian - Hindu Khan, who may have ranked as the majordomo in overall charge of the sultan's ghulams, since JuzjanI says that he bore the style of mihtar-i mubdrak and that he stood in the relation of a father to his fellow-Shamsls.13 The Turkish ghulams included Rumis (presumably Greeks or Slavs from Byzantine territory)14 and 'Khita'Is' (Khitan from northern China), whose ethnic background may or may not distinguish them from the Qarakhita'is (i.e. Qara-Khitan).15 Several of the Shamsis belonged to the Qipchaq, the group of tribes which occupied the steppes north of the Black Sea and the Caspian.16 And particular mention should be made, lastly, of those who belonged to Iltutmish's own people, the Olberli, a subgroup of the Qipchaq (or possibly of the Qangli, who were closely related to them): they included Baha' al-Din Balaban, the future sultan, known as Balaban-i Khwurd ('the Lesser').17 Although the Shamsis included a few former ghulams of other rulers,18 most were obtained direct from slave traders: Ibn Battuta heard much later that Iltutmish as sultan sent merchants to Samarqand, Bukhara and Tirmid to buy Turkish slaves on his behalf.19 The date of purchase ranged over a considerable period, beginning when Iltutmish was muqtac of Baran.20 The avenues varied by which Turkish youths destined for Egypt and Syria came into the hands of slave traders,21 and the same must be true of Muslim India. Iltutmish himself had allegedly been sold into slavery by his envious brothers, which enabled Juzjani to liken him to the Patriarch Yusuf (Qur'an, sura 12:7-20).22 Of Sayf al-Din Aybeg (later dadbeg), it is said that he was- enslaved 'through the perversity of kindred'. Two others were rumoured to be of Muslim parentage and thus unlawfully enslaved.23 Kishli Khan is said to have been enslaved when young, having fallen into Mongol hands.24 From the 1220s the westward advance of the Mongols gave rise to a sharp increase in the supply of Turkish slaves, particularly from the Caspian and Pontic steppes. Unscrupulous rulers seized on those who sought asylum with them, like the Turkish chieftain in the Crimea who in 640/1242-3 sold the future Mamluk Sultan Baybars into slavery;25 desperate fugitives exchanged their own offspring for the necessities of life; and the conquerors themselves converted human booty into more liquid assets by unloading their able-bodied captives onto the market. Iltutmish may also have profited from internal convulsions among the stricken Olberli.26 The attractions of an elite corps of military slaves who possessed no local ties and whose sole loyalty was to the master who had bought, nurtured and trained (and sometimes manumitted) them are obvious. A number of authors, including the litterateurs Jahiz in the ninth century and Ibn Hassul in the eleventh, and the Seljukid wazir Nizam al-Mulk (d. 485/1092), had sung the praises of Turkish ghulams.27

At the beginning of the thirteenth century Fakhr-i Mudabbir (admittedly writing for a monarch who was himself a ghulam) was the latest in a long line of authors to do so. There is no kind of infidel people, he says, which is brought over to Islam and does not look with longing at home, mother, father, and kindred: for a time they are bound to adopt Islam, but in most cases they apostatize and relapse into paganism. The exception is the Turkish race, who, when they are brought over to Islam, fix their hearts in Islam so firmly that they no longer remember home or region or kinsfolk ... The Turk is like a pearl that lies in the oyster in the sea. For as long as it is in its habitat, it is devoid of power and worth; but when it emerges from the oyster and from the sea, it acquires value and becomes precious, decorating the crown of kings and adorning the neck and ears of brides.28 This is not to say, however, that contemporaries were oblivious of the Turk's limitations. In one of 'Awfi's anecdotes Iltutmish deliberately chooses a Tajik to investigate an officer's financial interests, a delicate task for which, we are told, the 'impetuosity' (tahawwur) of a Turk would have disqualified him.29 And it is a moot question how deeply Islam was ingrained in these first-generation converts. If Turkish slaves may have enjoyed the benefits of being reared as orthodox Muslims, their origins lay, nevertheless, in the pagan steppelands of Central and Western Asia. This is not the place to examine the question of pagan survivals within Muslim Turkish societies.30 But Radiyya's enthronement may be symptomatic. Although the accession of a female monarch (as opposed to a regent) was without precedent in the Islamic world, the list of Qara-Khitan sovereigns in the twelfth century furnishes two examples. Some of Iltutmish's ghulams belonged, as we saw, to the Khitan or the Qara-Khitan, and in general women in the eastern steppe enjoyed greater freedom.31 It may well be that in raising up their master's daughter Turkish officers were strongly influenced by their pagan background."
.......
"
The 'Khalji Revolution'
Jalal al-Din's accession marked a break with the past in a way in which Balaban's usurpation had not. Early Muslim geographers and historians had regarded the Khalaj as a Turkish people;129 but accounts of the transfer of power from the Ghiyathids to the Khaljis indicate that in late-thirteenth-century Delhi they were regarded as a race quite distinct from the Turks.130 This may well be due to the particular sense acquired by the word 'Turk', which in large measure had come to mean a Turkish ghulam (appendix I).

The transfer of power to Jalal al-Din was greatly resented by the notables of Delhi, members of the great households (khaylkhanaha), many of whom may have been Turkish ghulams or their offspring and had been ensconced in the capital since at least Balaban's day.131 Whether the change of dynasty had profound implications for the composition of the aristocracy, however,
by diluting the Turkishness of the governing class, is another question. Nobles of Turkish slave ancestry may indeed have been the principal casualties of the Khalji seizure of power. Barani portrays the sons of Balaban's maliks during Jalal al-Din's reign as a pool of dispossessed nobles, alert for opportunities to undermine the new regime. For a time it seems that various grandees from Balaban's era who had lost their offices and stipends attached themselves to the new sultan's eldest son, Mahmud, entitled Khan-i Khanan; but on his premature death in c. 691/1292 they engaged in a conspiracy to replace Jalal al-Din with the dervish Sidi Muwallih and to redistribute court offices and iqta's among the sons of Balaban's khans and maliks. By no means all of them were Turks: they included the former grand qadi Kasani, *Hatya Paik and the kotwal *Birinjin.132 Although the charges could not be proven, two of the accused nobles were executed and the rest despoiled of their property and banished to outlying regions.133 The conspiracy seems to have been divulged to the sultan by a Mongol amir named Alughu, who had joined his court in 691/ 1292.134

As we might expect, the new sultan took care to promote fellow-Khalaj tribesmen, particularly members of his somewhat large family, which comprised at the very least three sons; a brother, Malik Khamush, who became 'arid; an uncle; and four nephews, one of whom was 'Ala' al-Din Muhammad (the future sultan), the offspring of Jalal al-Din's deceased elder brother, Shihab al-Din Mas'ud. Other newly promoted Khalaj amirs include the sultan's kinsman Ahmad-i Chap (at one time chamberlain to Aytemur Surkha, and so called from the clipped pronunciation of hajib by the Khalaj), who became sar-i jandar-i maymana, and
probably Malik Iwad, who bore a name common among the Khalaj.135"
....
"129 References are conveniently collected in Aziz Ahmad, 'Early Turkish nucleus', 103-5. See also Shabankara'I, 87, who calls Jalal al-DIn 'likewise a Turk from among the Turkmen Khalaj' (ham turklbudaz tarakima-yi khalaj).

 

[Samandri]

@kalu_miah now you have produced a quality post, i am processing and analyzing it. If i find some thing relevant, i would give response the post.

 

[Kaniska]

Honestly dude..Samndri..I may like or not about the intent of your post..But its really qualitative one..You really posted nice historical facts which might be relevant for some research people who are studying about your tribesmen and their histroy..Keep it up...

 

[ghoul]

Lol at OP deleting his own comments after realizing how retarded he sounded. At first he said Mahmud of Ghazni defeated Muhammad of Ghaur's father, named "Amir Suri" not realizing that the Ghauri and Mahmud predated each other by around 200 years lol. Maybe Muhammad Ghauri was 200 years old according to whatever rasaala he read.

As for Hindkowans, well people of southern Hazara are no different than Potoharis. The chief family of Haripur, commonly known as "Zaman family" is of Gakhar stock and owned almost 80%+ of land in Haripur before Ayub Khan took over a lot of their land citing land reforms. The Haripur Gakhar family is the spiritual royal family of Gakhars. I don't know if Gakhars were always native to Haripur or if they migrated there after Mughal collapse. They defeated Yousafzai incursions there under their last independent and almost unstoppable Gakhar chief, Sultan Muqarrab. The rest of Southern Hazara natives and landowners, Dhund Abbassi and Karlals are also Potohari and are found in Murree and Rawalpindi too. In Hazara, they're found all over the margalla hills region and southern Abbottabad. As for the other Hindkowans like Tanoli, they're not generally considered Pakhtuns and don't look like them either. Their learned men claim descent from a Mughal general of Babur, but some Afghani wikipedia and twitterati try to give them lodhi or ghilzai origin all the time. The only truly Pashtun origin Hazarewal are the Tareens, Chachis and maybe Jadoons. About the Chachis of Attock, they only moved in 100 years ago as economic migrants during the British raj. They're said to have come from Kandahar etc. The ruling family of Chach, nonetheless are the Malik Awans of Shamsabad. Malik Awan is the highest caste in Attock along with Gheba and Khattar.

As for Peshawar, one there are no Kianis(Gakhar) there. Second, Peshawar was always a Hindko majority city and the eastern regions of Peshawar district are still Hindko dominated. The Pashto speakers formed the majority after Afghan invasion, when literally millions of illegal immigrants poured in and got Pakistani citizenships via bribery.