What's new

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

Samandri

BANNED
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,959
Reaction score
-10
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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.
 
. .
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
 
.
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.
 
.
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.:guns:
 
.
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.
 
. .
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?
 
.
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.
 
. .
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.
 
.
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.
 
.
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. :)
 
.
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.
 
.
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
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom