how much this theory of Ghilzai possible turkic origin hold ground.

[marwat]

how much this theory of Ghilzai possible turkic origin hold ground. what are the modern scholar views and what does historian say about it?
there is a guy on internet saying it is beyond the fact that Ghilzai and turks.
[MENTION=18842]History of Pashtuns[/MENTION]

[Samandri]

how much this theory of Ghilzai possible turkic origin hold ground. what are the modern scholar views and what does historian say about it?
there is a guy on internet saying it is beyond the fact that Ghilzai and turks.
@History of Pashtuns

It can be only argued if its first established that Khiljis, who ruled Hindustan, were indeed Turks. Read my this Blog post Khiljis :Turks or Afghans?

[Samandri]

In the above Blog post, it is argued that Khiljis were Afghans. But I have lot of explanations to do, some points are bothering me.

1- In the history of India, Afghan or Pashtun Sultans, Nawabs, Mansabdars etc have exclusively or heavily relied on their ethnic Kinsmen for support and running their sultanates or chiefdoms. But Khilji Sultanate remained uncharacteristically diverse. Other than Khiljis, we hear of only two Afghan nobles in high ranks of Alaudin Khilji,... the two brothers , Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-din Yal Afghan and Malik Ismail Mukh Afghan (in the historical source of that time, these two are mentioned as "Afghan", so there is no doubt about their ethnicity). To give one example, Bahlul Khan Miyana, whose ancestors had long settled in Deccan, when became regent of Bijapur Sultanate, he appointed Pashtuns at all the posts and positions and expelled Habshis, Persians, Turks, Deccanis etc. Pashtuns were the only mansabdars (ranked officers) of Mughals who used to keep exclusively Pashtun contingents. Lodi, Sur and Karrani Sultanates were Pashtun-centric sultanates, there were no other 'partners'.

2- Khiljis, beside the common names, had characteristically Turkish names.....brother of Alaudin Khilji was Ulugh Khan or Almas Beg. Another Khilji nobleman was named Alp Khan.......one explanation can be , that they were wannabes, pretended to be Turks....but huaghty Pashtuns never suffred from inferiority complex of such nature and always asserted their nationality.

3- Recently i have come upon a paper by H.G.Raverty, he gives reference from "Masalik ul Mamalik", a 9th century book of geography, written long before Mahmud Ghaznavi. It is mentioned in that book "the Khalj are a tribe of Turks , settled in Garamsir (Helmand) between Sijistan (Sistan) and the region of Hind. They are in appearance and dress like Turks , and observe the customs of that race , and all speak the Turki language. ". The same work also states that in two or three places , that there is a town called Khalj in that part.

So 400 or 500 years before the ascendancy of Khiljis to throne of Delhi, Khiljis are mentioned living in Garamsir area of Helmand province of Afghanistan. Ferishta says that Khilji Turks , in the course of centuries , intermingled so much with neighboring Afghans that they had acquired "manners and customs" of Afghans. So that in India , they were not recognized as Turks. Raverty asserts that Ghilzais are not Khiljis but at that time they were confined to Ghar, the Suleiman mountains. Olaf Careo differs, that Ghilzai was not a small sept that they can be hidden and anonymous in Takht-i-Suleiman. (But in the same way, the Abdalis, so numerous nowadays like Ghilzais, are also not mentioned in the works of that time and remained anonymous until the period of safavids.... )

[marwat]

It can be only argued if its first established that Khiljis, who ruled Hindustan, were indeed Turks. Read my this Blog post Khiljis :Turks or Afghans?

what about lodhi?
ENCYCLOPÆDIA IRANICA says 'There is no known systematic and conclusive ethnological body of evidence to support important Ḡalzī and Hephtalite/Ḵalaj/Ḵaljī/Lodī cultural, historical, and/or socio-structural relationships.'
are they referring to lodhi tribal confederation or the lodhi word Etymology. are there any theories of lodhi origin possible turk?
they are giving the impression that lodhi are also turks. for example here
'Some Indian and Western historians and several nationalistically inspired Afghan writers have proposed that the Turkish Ḵaljī and the Lodī dynasties that ruled northern India during 689-720/1290-1320 and 855-932/1451-1526 respectively were Ḡalzī Pashtuns.'

[Samandri]

Lodis are not Ghilzais to begin with. Lodis are considered first "pure" Pashtun rulers of India by historians about whom there is no doubt. Its because Lodis themselves asserted their Pashtun nationality and were Pashtuns to the core, running even their empire on tribal principles of Pashtuns. Well-knowledged academicians have criticized those who , out of laziness, write Lodis as branch of Ghilzais. Ghilzais have their own branches while Lodi, once , was as numerous as Ghilzais. For example Mohmands can not be called Daudzais just because both are Ghoria Khels.

In our folk lore , Giljay and lodaey were brothers, sons of Bibi Mato. But, like i said , its not firmly established that Khiljis were indeed Ghilzais , not just Afghanized Turks.

Some Ghilzai supremacists of Afghanistan, in their rivalry with Abdalis, conveniently count Lodis and Surs (branch of Lodis) as Ghilzais. The fact is , Lodi tribes were expelled from present day Afghanistan by their rival ghilzais. Ghilzais and Lodis were like wazirs and mehsuds, cousin-tribes and rivals.

We Marwats, along with other Nuhanis or Luhanis, were expelled from Katwaz after a long war with rival ghilzais. Other branches of Lodis had met the same fate, like Niazis who were also expelled from Ghazni by ghilzais. Other branches of Lodis, are Prangis (the royal clan), Dotanis, Sarwanis, Surs (of sher shah), Mehpals etc. Ghilzais have their own branches . like Hotaks (royal clan), Tokhi, Andar, Suliamn Khels, Kharoti, Ahmadzai etc

[Samandri]

In the times of Sur sovereigns, there were some officers in their ranks whose surnames were 'Ghilzai'. At the same time there was community of khilji in the Malwa region of India who had ruled it in the times of Bahlul Lodi. These Khiljis of Malwa, have never been referred to as Afghans. When these Khiljis fought with Bahlul Lodi, its never have been referred to as clash between Afghans. So Afghan Sultans of India, had their cousins Ghilzais in their ranks, but there also existed Khilji sultanate in their neighborhood which was never considered Afghan by them.

So on very close inspection, there are hints that ghilzais and khiljis were not the same people. Moreover the Afghan historians of that period , mention Ghilzais as Pashtuns but do not mention any where that Khilji Sultans were Pashtuns. They mention Lodis, as first Afghan sovereigns. Persian historians of Mughals, who wrote in detail about Afghans, don not mention Khiljis as first Afghan rulers of India but start with Lodis.

[khushal]

You must establish the fact that the theory states that Ghilzai were once linguistically Turks but not ethnic Turks otherwise you will confuse the readers. Ethnic Turks have Mongloid features while Afghan Ghilzai do not. It is poosible that they could have been linguistic Turks at one time and then Afghanized afterwards.

[Samandri]

Ethnic Turks have Mongloid features while Afghan Ghilzai do not. .

I am not an expert on anthropology but i think the phenotypes of central Asian Turks changed drastically after Mongol invasion. Uzbeks and Kyrghis look very Mongolian but as you go west towards Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, which suffered less from Mongol devastation and settlements, they begin to show heavy Caucasian looks. I have read that Kipchak Turks of steppes, which suffered extermination and enslavement at the hands of Mongols, had rather handsome features (from our standards), red even blonde hair, coloured eyes etc. The Mamluks of Egypt, were these Kipchak Turks, and they are described as handsome people. Arabs and Persians were very familiar with Turks but the Mongol hordes appearing on their doors, were weird and alien looking to them.

Amir Khusrao, a poet of 13th century India, who was in the service of Turk and Khilji Sultans of India.....was a Turk himself and was living in Turk-dominated India. He was captured by Mongols for some time and he described them as "squat bodies suited to attack, bow legs and ugly faces marked by prominent ears and flat noses, swarthy skins, and bristling hair"............ Mongols invaders definitely look very different from the Turks in our regions, i dont think Subtagin, Mahmud Ghaznavi etc were Mongoloid people.

Moreover Khaljis were probably hephtalites from Turkmenistan, resembled Turks but were not Turks , i think.

[Samandri]

Speaking of Amir Khusrao, the poet wrote "Khaza'in ul-Futuh"in the praise of Sultan Alaudin Khilji but he had described Afghans in very strange manner in a letter to Ikhtiyar Al-din Begtars in 1280 A.D,

"....in this fortress live the Afghans - nay man-slaying demons, for even the demons groan in fright at their shouts. Their heads are like big sacks of straw, their beards like combs of the weaver , long-legged as the stork but more ferocious than the eagle , their heads lowered like that of the owl of the wilderness. Their voices hoarse and shrill like that of a jack-daw , their mouths open like a shark. Their tongue is blunt like home-made arrow , and fling stones like the sling of a battering ram. Well has a wise man said that when speech was sent to men from sky, the Afghans got the last and least share of it."

[Samandri]

Another point to consider ; the tribes and sub-tribes of Afghan/Pashtun Sultans is recorded and known. For example Bahlul Lodi belonged to Shahu Khel section of Prangi tribe and Sher Shah Suri belonged to Shera-khel section of Sur tribe.....both Prangi and Sur, being sub-tribes within Lodi.

But same can not be observed about Khiljis. If they were Ghilzais, we should have heard about heavy presence of Afghan nobles with tribal surnames in their ranks. Khiljis didnt patronize Afghans to the level, which Lodi and Sur sultans did. The contemporary Tarikh-feroz Shahi, says that Khiljis were not Turks but doesnt say either that they were Afghans. Its author Barani is very familiar with Afghans. If any Afghan is mentioned in that book, he is very clearly written as Afghan.....for example that book says that in 1318 an officer , "Lakhi Khan Afghan" was sent from Delhi to Deccan

[khushal]

I am not an expert on anthropology but i think the phenotypes of central Asian Turks changed drastically after Mongol invasion. Uzbeks and Kyrghis look very Mongolian but as you go west towards Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, which suffered less from Mongol devastation and settlements, they begin to show heavy Caucasian looks. I have read that Kipchak Turks of steppes, which suffered extermination and enslavement at the hands of Mongols, had rather handsome features (from our standards), red even blonde hair, coloured eyes etc. The Mamluks of Egypt, were these Kipchak Turks, and they are described as handsome people. Arabs and Persians were very familiar with Turks but the Mongol hordes appearing on their doors, were weird and alien looking to them.

Amir Khusrao, a poet of 13th century India, who was in the service of Turk and Khilji Sultans of India.....was a Turk himself and was living in Turk-dominated India. He was captured by Mongols for some time and he described them as "squat bodies suited to attack, bow legs and ugly faces marked by prominent ears and flat noses, swarthy skins, and bristling hair"............ Mongols invaders definitely look very different from the Turks in our regions, i dont think Subtagin, Mahmud Ghaznavi etc were Mongoloid people.

Moreover Khaljis were probably hephtalites from Turkmenistan, resembled Turks but were not Turks , i think.

The hephtalites were not ethnic Turks but did belong to the Turkic linguistic group meaning they had adopted the Turks language and culture.
Most Turks that came south into Persia adopted Persian and ones that came into Afghanistan and India adopted the local customs and languages with the rulers mostly adopting Farsi for administration.

The Turks that went westward into Anatolia namely the Oghuz Turks influenced the people there with their language and culture but those people are still the indigenous people of Anatolia who are Caucasian. Arabic and Persian on the other hand could not be influenced since both were rich with literature and poetry.

The Turks are a linguistic group rather than an ethnic group since they absorbed many other ethnic groups into their language and culture.

[marwat]

thanks [MENTION=18842]History of Pashtuns[/MENTION] for your valuable comments. much appreciated

[Kushan Prince]

Zero.

And Hepthalites were Abdali Pashtuns from Kabul who invaded India later by establishing an empire in central asia first.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Zero.

And Hepthalites were Abdali Pashtuns from Kabul who invaded later by establishing an empire in central asia first.

Hey man, welcome back!!

[Kushan Prince]

Hey man, welcome back!!

Thanks my brother!