Khaljies are Afghan
In the Indian HistoricalCongress, held in 1939, one of the speakers who spoke on this issue said thatthe Khaljies were not Turks, and his studies were published in the Proceedingsof the Indian History Congress. But before this Edward Thomas had published abook 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=Afghankings. During this period five Moslem dynasties and 40 kings ruled over theDelhi throne.[1]Sir Wolseley Haig, who published the third volume of the Cambridge History ofIndia in 1928, in which he discusses Turks and Afghans in India, says for thesake of precaution that the Khaljies were related to Afghans and adds that theywere Turks who adhere to Afghan customs and live in the Garmser area ofAfghanistan. Since their second race came into being in India, they have deniedbeing the descendants of Turkish origin.[2]
In the whereabouts of 1205A.D. and after the death of the Ghorid emperor Mui'ziz-ud-din Mohammad Saam, anumber of Afghans, some of whom were of the Pashto speaking Afghan origin andothers belonged to the Turkish race were raised in Afghan courts and got mixedwith Afghans. Therefore, scholars like Thomas and his predecessors considerthem 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., heand his followers (according to Mohammad Qasim Firishta) considered themselvesto 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 sonMubarakshah, and other historians like Shams Siraj A'fif in Tarikh-e Ferozshahiand Abdul Qadir Badayuni, the author of Muntakhab-ul-Tawarikh also considerthis dynasty to be Sayyids or the descendents of Mohammad the Prophet. ButMohammad Qasim Ferishta says: "Before this Malik Sulamaan never claimed to be adescendent 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 andhis son were Afghans and not Sayyids of the Arabic race.[5]
Since in this article theissue under investigation is the Khalji and refutation that they are linked tothe Turks, explanations and details into other issues will not be discussed.From the available historical and linguistic reasoning it can be said thatKhalji is the present Ghalji and is the name of certain Afghan tribes. Thisroot is present in Gharj, Gharcha, Ghalcha and other historical words, and "gh"has converted to "kh", hence Ghalji has been mispronounced as Khalji. Thischange is seen in the texts of the third, fourth and following centuries of theHijera.
According to Minhaj Serajthere were over 15 great Khalji personalities who ruled from 1203 A.D. onwardsover India and were spreading Khorasanian and Islamic culture all over northernIndia and the highlands of North Bengal.[6]Once again the Khaljies ruled over Delhi from 1203 to 1320 A.D. All theserulers were the Ghaljis of Afghanistan. Several places are still known inAfghanistan as Khalaj. Such as the Khalaj (near Gizeo of Rozgan, north ofKandahar), the Khalaj[7] ofHelmand valley and the Khalaj of Ghazna, which Yaqut also mentions [8]as being near Ghazni in the land ofZabulistan.
In view of linguisticanalysis, Khalji, Ghalji or Ghalzi are Gharzay, meaning mountain-dwellers (inPahsto 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 andaccording 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 tentdwellers. Kohzad is the translation of Pashto Gharza and the Ghalji. Tent dwellersstill live in the same manner in this region. Just as in Pashto this ancientword is Gharzay=Gharlji=Khalji. In Arabic it is written Gharj, and kohzad inDari has the same structure and meaning. The term is so old that Panini, thefounder of Sanskrit grammar (about 350 B.C.), has called the tribes of centraland northern Rohita-Giri=Hindu Kush, as Pohita Giries or mountaineers [9],which means kohzad or gharzay=Khalji.
We know that Indians calledthis land Roh. Huen Tsang has also noted this word in 630 A.D. and after 1203A.D. Indian authors have called Afghanistan, (extending from Heart to HasanAbdal) Roh[10]and its inhabitants as Rohela, which means kohzad or Ghalji=Khalji. In India aplace named Rohil-Kohzad is related to Rohela (Kohzad) and was the dwellingplace of Afghans who had settled in India. In the names of some tribes "gh" hasben converted to "kh" e.g. Khir=Khez=Qir=Ghez[11]or the present Saghar, south of Ghor, has been recorded as Saakhar by MinhajSierj. [12]
With great doubt MohammadQasim Firisha states from Tabaqat-e Akbari of Nizam-ud-Din Ahmad Bakhshi Hirawithat Khaljies are the descendants of Khalij Khan, the son-in-law of GenghisKhan. But this statement is not true, since historical documents reveal thatKhaljies or Ghaljies lived in Zabulistan three centuries before Genghis. Theunknown author of Hudud-ul-Alam writes in 982 A.D.: "In Ghazna and the vicinityof these towns, which have been mentioned here, live Taraks of Khalj." They area nomadic people and possess a lot of sheep. These Taraks of Khalj are found ingreat numbers in Balkh, Tukharistan and Gozganan also. [13]
Minhaj Siraj once againproves that the Khaljies ruled long before Genghis and his son-in-law over Indiaand their empire stretched as far as the highlands of North Bengal. A fullchapter of the 20th part of his book deals with these people. [14]
He says that the Khaljieslive near Ghazni, Garmseer and Ghor, but has not said anything about thesepeople being Turks. On the other hand, he clearly refers to other rulers ofTurkish descent as Turks.
Khalj, which has beenaltered to Khalakh by calligraphers, was a well-known word among geographerslong before the compilation of Hudud-ul-Alam. Ibne Khurdadbeh (844-848 A.D.)also speaks about Khaljiya. He confirms that there is a difference betweenKhalj and says: "the winter dwelling of Turksof 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, similarto their present habits, moved towards warmer regions during the cold season ofthe year. According to Ibn-e Khurdadbeh these regions were called Jarmiya(Jurum of Baladhuri and Minhaj Siraj). Ibn-e Khurdadbeh writes that theirwinter pastures were on this side of the Oxus river (p. 3). Some of these nomadictribes still go to these areas.
Another geographer IbrahimIbn-e Mohammad Istakhri (about 951 A.D.) writes Khalj are a clan of Atrak (mostprobably a plural of Tarak) who came to the region between India and Seistanduring ancient times. They had large stocks of sheep and their language andclothes resemble those of Turks.[16]
Some oriental scholars areof the belief that Gharjies are the descendants of Helthalites (presumably amixed race of Hepthalite and Pakhts who have been living in Afghanistan sincethe Vedic Aryan period). Marquart says: Khalch or Kholackj are descendants ofthe Yaftals, who have been mentioned as Khwalas in Syrian sources (about 554A.D.). After this in 569 A.D. ambassador Zemarchos has written this name asXoliatai.[17]
Mohammd son of AhmadKhwarazmi (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 havealways been mentioned together and indispensably their place or origin and racewas common. Abu Nasr Mohammad, son of Abdul Jabbar Utbi (1023 A.D.), in theconquests of Subuktagin writes as follows: "the Afghans and Khalj obeyedSubuktagin and reluctantly joined his forces."[20]Ibn-ul-Athir has also mentioned this event in the same manner. [21]
Minorsky clearly writes thatthese Khaljies are the ancestors of the present Afghan Ghalji. Barthold andHaig have written the same in the Islamic Encyclopedia. [22]It can therefore be said that Khalji or Ghalji were related to the Hepthalitesand Zabul rulers, since the Helthalites, (Hayatila of Arabs) ruled overZabulistan. Their features struck on coins resemble the features of the Ghaljiyouth who live in this area and have high noses, almond eyes, bushy hair, andstrong features.
Therefore, Khaljies orGhaljies are not the descendants of those Turks or Ghuz who had come to Khorasanduring the Islamic period, but are Hepthalites of the Arian race who werefamous as White Huns and lived in Tukharistan and Zabulistan and the name of theirancestors has remained in the names of the present Ghaljiäthe Kochi=Koshitribes of Zabul. Similarly the root of Hiftal is seen in Yaftal and Haftali inAbdali. The word Ghalji is known in Badakhshan now as Ghalcha=Garcha. In Dariliterature 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 overone hundred years,
Why did the Arab (Prophet)live only sixty three?
The word Koch and Balochhave been written in the same place in appendages of Shahnama, and the Arabshave Arabized them to Qufs and Balus. In fact they are Khalji=Ghalji nomadshaving an ancient history in Ariana. Some scholars believe that these Kochi (nomads)are the Apa Kochiya mentioned in Achaemenian inscriptions who lived in thisregion 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 phenomenonsince two northern and southern branches of the Arian race have got mixed. Itis not evident what language the White Arians (Hun=Hepthalite) spoke, but fromthe closeness of dialects in the upper Hindu Kush e.g. Gharcha, Wakhi etc. itcan be guessed to have resembled Pashto and certain Pashto sounds which are notfound in Pahlawi, Dari, Avesta and Sanskrit are present in these dialects untilnow. These white Arian Huns were Haftali (Abdali) who attacked India fromZabulistan and conquered Kashmir. The Sanskrit inscription of the 7thcentury A.D. found in 1839 A.D. in Wihand on the banks of the Indus river nearAttock 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 andtheir ferocious attacks over Kashmir and says that the Turushkas carried their weaponsupon their shoulders and shaved half their scalp. He says that the Kushanidkings Kanishka, Hushka, and Jushka are the descendents of Turushka.[25]
Turushka of Indian sourceswill be discussed later. The Huns who after the 6thcentury 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 calledKhan all over India due to the alteration of h and kh in central Asianlanguages. For example the Hwarazm was converted to Khwarazm. The Turkspronounce 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 convertedto Khan, which means that the Afghan Khalji Khans were not Turks and we havethe following reasoning to prove this statement.
1. Mahmud Kashghari (1074 A.D.), who was of Turkish descent and a Turkologistsays: The ghuz of Turkmans comprise 24 tribes, but two Khaljiya tribes resemblethe 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 sonof Bakran in the whereabouts of 1203 A.D. writes: The Khaljies of Taraksmigrated from Khalukh to Zabulistan. They have settled in the plain nearGhaznayn. Because of the hot weather their color has changed and they becameswarthy, their language also changed. As a misreading Khalukh is read Khalj. [28] From this declaration of theauthor of Jahan Nama it is clear that due to differences in color and languagethe Khaljiya were separate by all means from the Turks and a misreading existedbetween Khalj and Khalukh.
3. Minhaj Seraj, who is from Khorasan and is wellfamiliar with the affairs of this land, knows a number of Turkish rulers ofIndia, but has always referred to the Turkish and Turks and the Khaljiya asKhaljies.
4. Zia Barani, the Indian historian (1357 A.D.) in hisbook Tarikh-e-Ferozshahi, has a special chapter where he says the king must beamong the Turks but when Malik Jalaluddin Khalji ascended the Delhi throne hesays: "the people found it difficult to tolerate a Khalji king." [29]Since Khaljies were not Turks Indianhistorians also considered them to be Afghans.[30]
5. In Afghan literature the Khalji of India have beenreferred to as being Afghan Ghalji. Khushal Khan Khattak, the famous Pashtopoet (died 1688 A.D.) in a long elegy enumerates the Afghan kings and considersSultan Jalaluddin Khalji (1290-1295 A.D.) to be a Ghalji of Wilayat(Afghanistan).
"Then SultanJalaluddin ascended the Delhi throne who was a Ghalji from Wilayat." [31]
Afghans usually referred tothe lands behind Khyber as Wilayat and the Indians referred to Khorasan andAfghanistan by this name. This shows that until the time of Khushal Khan theKhaljies were considered Afghans and not Turks.
6. Another reason which proves that the Khaljies areAfghans 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 miraclesof Sultan Sakhi Sarwar[32](known as Lakhdata died 1181 A.D. and buried in Shah Kot of Dera Ghazi Khan) iswritten in Persian whose author is unknown. In this book the author relates astory from Tarikh-e Ghazna by Abu Hamid-al-Zawali and quotes Hasan Saghani. [33] "KabulShah, 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 thispoem shows that it is ancient Pashto which is said to have been the language ofKhaljiya. This means that the Khalji spoke Pashto, and they are the presentAfghan Ghaljies.
7. Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, well known as Fakhr-eMudabir and author of Adab-al-Harb and other famous books, writing on the Historyof India (1205 A.D.) says that the armies of Sultan Qutb-ud-Din comprised ofTurks, Ghori, Khorasani, Khalji and Indian soldiers. [35]This proves that in the beginning of the 7th century Hijera theTurks and Khaljies were two separate nationalities. If not so then they wouldnot have been mentioned separately in the same sentence.
8. Until the time of Babur, the founder ofthe Indian Mughal dynasty the Ghalji of present Ghazna have been mentioned asAfghan Khalji and not as Turks. Babur says: "In 1507 A.D. we had ridden out ofKabul with the intention of over-running the country of Afghan Khaljies,northeast of Ghazni and brought back with us one hundred thousand head of sheepand other things."[36]
Turk-Tarak Turuska
There are two reason as towhy the Khaljies have been mistaken to be Turks:
First: The Sakas, Kushanidsand Huns came to Bactria and Tukharistan and southern Hindu Kush from TransOxiana and they were desert dwelling Arians and their culture resembled that ofTurks of Altai and western China. These people probably had cultural andlinguistic similarities with the Turks. Since these people got mixed with the aboriginesof Ariana (ancient Afghanistan), the Tajiks and the Pashtoons. According toJahan Nama their language and color changed. Therefore, Barthold and some otheroriental scholars considered the Pashto speaking Ghaljies to be descendants ofthese people. Even the name Abdali is related to these people and Awdal=Abdalhas derived from Haftal=Yaftal. Classic writers have written this name asEuthalite. The tribes of Kafiristan (present Nuristan), northeast Hindu Kushalso referred to Moslem Afghans as Odal up to the 19th century. [37]The Kabul Shahs of the 7thcentury whose titles and names were inDari or Pashto were the descendants of the Dumi tribe of the Kushanids. [38]
The second reason is that inArabic script the word Tarak and Turk resemble each other and since Turks werewell-known among Arab writers from the early years of Islamic period,therefore, they considered Tarak of the Afghan Khaljies to be Turks from theTurkish race. While the Taraki Ghaljies are famous Afghan nomadic tribes whosenumber in the plains of Ghazni (according to Shahnama from their land there wasa way to Hindustan) surpass 50,000. Until the present time these people movetowards the valleys of the Indus and Tukharistan during winter. They possesslarge herds of sheep, speak Pashto and are true representatives of Afghanculture.
But the word Turushka, mentioned in Sanskrit works,has been used in different forms in Raja Tarangini. In first Tarangini, shlok170, three Kushanid emperors have been considered to belong to the Turushkatribe. Paragraph 20 of another Indian work, Chavithakara, also deals with thisissue the same way.[39]But in Rajaa Tarangini (vol. 2, p. 336) this word has been mentioned by Kalhanaas the name of Muslim conquerors who were in war with the Kabul Shahs. SirAurel Stein says: "Undoubtedly, here Turushka means the Moslems. In 871 A.D.Saffarid Yaqub Layth captured Kabul and like the Arab conquerors attacked theremnants of Kabul Shah from Seistan and Rukhaj. Therefore the danger poised byTurushka, 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 Turkbut was also used to mean the Arabs, the Saffarids of Seistan and all those whoattacked India and the Kabul Shah from the west. For example, Harasha, a Turushkaking 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 acontemporary of Subuktagin and Sultan Mahmud, the battles of Turushka Kammiraconducted by Subuktagin or Amir Mahmud have been mentioned. This further meansthat Turushka was a word also applied to the conquerors from the west i.e. theKushanids, Huns, Moslems and Turks. This word has also been inscribed in theSanskrit inscription of Wihand, in which the carnivorous and mighty Huns havebeen called by this name.
The ancient Arians of theVedic period who moved towards the east from Afghanistan called their soldiersKshatria. This word (kash+tura) means a swordsman in Pashto. The title suitsthe warrior soldiers and the name of the Tarakay tribe is related to this sameroot. There are a number of other similar Afghan names of this type likeTurman, Turyalay, Turkalanay with an initial tur+a suffix.
The word tura is widespreadin 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 asturwahuney, meaning one who wields a sword. According to Kalhana, Turman wasthe name of a Kshatria king of Gandhara and in present usage also means aswordsman.
After reading the statedfacts we can conclude that the Khaljies were Pashto speaking Taraks and notTurks. Confusion between the two words started in Arabic script from the earlyIslamic period.[42]Similarly, the Iranian word Turushka did not mean Turks but as a converted formof the Vedic Kshatria, which has been used in Pashto literature as tur kash,meaning those soldiers armed with swords. However, it must be added thatseveral centuries after the advent of the Christian era, Afghan Khaljiesintermingled with powerful Turks of the courts in battles and journeys,therefore they acquired Turkish names and customs. Thus authors had a right toconfuse the two nationalities while there existed a confusion between the wordsTarak (the Afghan Khalji tribe) and Turk also. Due to these facts a number ofTurkish words have been used in Pashto from the time of the Kushanids and theHepthalites (Huns) and have acquired a special Pashto form, like wulus(nation), jirgah (a council) kuk (meaning rhythm in Turkish), khan (achieftain=hun) and tugh (flag) etc.
It must not be forgottenthat Mahmud son of Husayn Kashghari, the Turkish scholar 1073 A.D., hasdenominated a special form for Khalj. He says that in the Samarqand battleswith Alexander only 22 persons were left from the Turkish tribes. While walkingwith their families as men on foot they met two persons carrying loads on theirbacks and consulted them. They advised them as follows: "Alexander is a passerby and he is bound to leave and will not stay in this country, only we willremain."
In Turkish they referred tothese two persons "qal-aj" meaning that they remained and stayed. Thereforethey became famous as Khalj and their successors were the two clans ofKhaljies. Since thier character and mode resembled the Turks Alexander saidthey are Turkman, that is they resemble the Turks. Hence they are still referredto as Turkman. All Turkish tribes are composed of 22 clans but the two clans ofKhaljies do not consider themselves to the Turkish. [43]
This denomination of Khaljand Turkman, in which Alexander was considered to be a Persian speaker, has theform of a fable and does not bear any historical evidence. But the fact thatthe Kushanids and Helthalites (Huns) were ruling over this land during the 7thand 8th centuries A.D. has been recorded in a number of historicaland linguistic documents. Inscriptions also bear these facts. And that they have mingledracially and culturally with the Pashtoons is a very natural phenomenon.
Since the Kushanid andYaftali tribes had a number of Turkish cultural and linguistic elementsinstilled among them and the Turharian Tigins ruled over the south and north ofthe Hindu Kush, until the beginning of the Islamic period, and Zabulistan (thepresent 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 mixedwith the Khalji mountain dwelling people. In this process they accepted thelinguistic 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 wasentered in the form of Bag (meaning an emperor or king). [44]On the other hand on the inscription of the Yaftali period, in Jaghatu ofGhazni, the Turkish title of Ulugh has been written with the name of a king incursive Greek script and we know that Ulugh also means Bag or great. The namesof 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 theKhalji=Ghalji, Minhaj Siraj's statement is worth consideration in which hesays: "Sultan Jalaluddin Khwarazm Shah and Malik Khan of Heart reached Ghaznaynand a large army of Turks, and rulers of Ghor, Tajik, Khalji and Ghori gatheredat 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 thebattle of Parwan and the defeat of the Genghis army. [47]
In the common usage of thepeople of Khorasan the word Khalji was pronounced with a (ghein) as Ghalji.Even today in Afghanistan this mode of pronunciation is widespread. We alsohave historical proof for this statement: the oriental branch of the Moscow Academyof Sciences has printed in Arabic Al-Tarikh-ul-Mansuri of Mohammad son of AliHamawi from a unique manuscript in photographic form in which the supporters ofKhwarazm Shah have been continuously referred to as Qalji. [48]Since in western Khorasan and Iran (ghein) is pronounced as (qaf) qiran asghiran and Quran as Ghuran, therefore, they converted Ghalji to Qalji and ifthey would have heard this word in the form of Khalji they would have writtenit in its original form, because these people do not convert (khe) to (Qaf).
Now after all these detailswe can conclude that Khaljies belong to the present Ghalji tribes of Zabul ofAfghanistan, whose original name in Pashto was Gharzay meaning kohzad ormountaineer. Thus Gharzay was converted to Ghalji or Khalji in the historicalrecords of Afghanistan and India.
1. ↑ The Chronicles of PathanKings, 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 theseKhalk in the province of Helmand, p. 245.
8. ↑ Mu'jan-ul-Buldan. 2/381.
9. ↑ Hindustan as seen by Paniniby 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 theword Khalj has been misinterpreted as Khalkh by the calligrapher and publishedthat way.
14. ↑ Tabakat-e Nasiri after1/422.
15. ↑ Al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik,28.
16. ↑ Masalik-ul-Mamalik ofIstakhri, 245.
17. ↑ Minorsky's commentary onHudud-ul-Alam, 347 from Iranshahar of Marquart after 251.
18.↑ In the original sourceKanjina has been written incorrectly. In Bayhaqi it is Kapchi and in Tabaqat-eNasiri Kochi and the Arabs have converted it to Qufs. In the appendages to theShahnama it has been written Koch and at present this word is Kochi inAfghanistan. This word is a remnant of the name of Koshi=the Koshan of thefirst century B.C.
19. ↑ Mafatih-ul-Ulum, 72.
20. ↑ Tarikh-e Yamini, 26.
21. ↑ Al-Kamil 8/348, Ibn-ul-Athirwrites in Al-Kamil:L Yaqub Layth conquered Khaljiya and Zabul.
22. ↑ Minorsky's comments onHudud-al-Alam, 348.
23. ↑ Old Persian 165 and SabkShinasi 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-eFerozshahi, 173. Calcutta.
30. ↑ Tazkira-e Bahaduran-e Islam,2/331.
31. ↑ Divan of Khushal Khan 669,Kandahar.
32. ↑ For the biography of thissaint refer to Khazinat-ul-Asfiya 2/248 and Ab-e Kawtbar by Shaikh Ikram p. 91onwards.
33. ↑ Born in Lahore 1181, died1252 A.D.
34. ↑ Tarikh-al-Yaqubi 2/131.
35. ↑ Introduction to the Historyof Mubarak Shah, 33. London, 1927.
36. ↑ Tuzuk-e Babur 127, Bombay.
37.↑ Charles Mason, narrative ofvarious journeys in Baluchistan and Afghanistan. 1/232, London 1842.
38. ↑ A new research on theKabulshahan, p. 30, Kabul 1969.
39. ↑ Aurel Stien's comments onRaja Tarangini 1/30.
40. ↑ Aurel Stein's comments onRaja 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 whohave minted coins stating NYCHKMLKA in Pahlavi. These people or family have alsobeen considered Turks while in the coins belonging to them Shah (o) TarakaNisaga, with two short As of Taraka is evident (R. Ghirshman's book on theChinites=Hepthalites, p. 23 printed in Cairo in 1948). The word Taraka with twoshort As bears complete resemblance with the Afghan name Tarak.
43. ↑ Diwn-ul-Lughat-ul-Turk3/307.
44. ↑ Diwan-ul-Lughat-ul-Turk3/116.
45. ↑ Refer to Tabaqat-e-Nasiri. Vol.2. The Khalji kings in India.
46. ↑ Tabaqat-e Nasiri 2/259.
47.↑ Jahan Kusha of Juwayni2/194.
48. ↑ Al-Tarikh-ul-Mansuri 140.
Source: KhberOrg