Hindu Shahi kings were not Janjua Rajputs of Punjab

[Samandri]

The 19th century British author Alexander Cunningham was the first one who conjectured that Hindu Shahis were Janjua Rajputs. After his his work, Janjuas made the claim that Hindu Shahi kings were from their tribe. Some authors utilized Alexander Cunningham's work without any proper research of their own and repeated his statement that Hindu Shahis were Janjuas.

Cunningam is of opinion that the title "Jahaj" of the sovereigns of "Gandhara" mentioned by 10th century Arab geographer Masudi , is none other than Janjua. He further says that Masudi mentions Gandhara to be the country Rajputs and Janjuas of Punjab also call themselves Rajputs so Hindu Shahis were none other than Janjuas of Punjab.

When i examined the primary source i.e Masudi's book, i found clear mistakes by Alexander Cunningham. In the manuscript the word is حححى which according to the English translator must be جحج Jahaj or Hahaj. The word does not resemble Janjua جنجوعہ from any angle. There is not any medieval text which shows Janjua to be written as Jahaj جحج at any point in history. In the actual text , its not Gandhara but Al-Kandahar (القندهار) , which is the city of present-day Afghanistan. And its not Rajput but Al-Rahyut ( الرهیوط). The translator thinks it must be Al-Rahbut (الرهبوط), and Alexander consulting that English translation has declared it to be Rajput.

The most authentic source on the period is Al-Beruni's Tarikh-i-Hind and according to him King Jaypala and other Hindu Shahi kings were Brahmans.

[Samandri]

I have read some braggings from Punjabi historians that Lahore of their Punjab once ruled Afghanistan. There is not a single evidence which says that Hindu Shahis of Kabul/Peshawar were originally from Lahore or any part of present-day Punjab. It was Lahor (Chotta Lahor, Swabi, KP) which was associated with Hindu Shahis, not the Lahore of present-day Punjab.

Tarikh-i-Ferishta of 17th century, unaware of the existence of Lahor near Peshawar, assumed that Hindu Shahi capital was Lahore city of his times. He says ;

"The Afghans having procured reinforcements from Khulij, Ghoor, and Kabul, to the number of four thousand men, marched against the Indian forces. The two armies fought, in the five ensuing months, seventy actions ; but the winter setting in severely, the Indians were compelled to retreat to Lahore, an object which they effected with great difficulty. In the following spring the Indians again took the field, under their former general. The Afghans met them on a plain between Kirman (Kurram) and Pishawur, where several indecisive actions took place, till at length the rainy season being about to commence, the Indians took the opportunity of a temporary advantage which they had gained over the Afghans to retreat by forced marches, so as to cross the Neelab (Indus) while yet fordable. The same cause also induced the Mahomedans to return within their frontiers. About this period some disputes arising between the Gukkurs and the Raja of Lahore, this race formed a treaty of alliance, defensive and offensive with the Afghans, who compelled the Raja of Lahore to submit to terms from the Gukkurs, to whom he could otherwise himself have dictated conditions."

Ferishta was in possession of very early documents which are no longer extant. He himself might have assumed that the famous Lahore of his times in meant. But from the above passage, its obvious it was Lahor of Swabi . The action is taking place in Peshawar and Hindu Shahi forces would retreat to nearby Lahor of Swabi rather than all the way to Lahore of present-day Punjab.

Present-day Lahore city of Punjab was not rule of under Hindu Shahis

[Friends of Baloch]

The 19th century British author Alexander Cunningham was the first one who conjectured that Hindu Shahis were Janjua Rajputs. After his his work, Janjuas made the claim that Hindu Shahi kings were from their tribe. Some authors utilized Alexander Cunningham's work without any proper research of their own and repeated his statement that Hindu Shahis were Janjuas.

Punjabis, especially Jats, always cite Cunningham to make absurd and unsubstantiated claims about themselves and their history. Cunningham is like a 'god' for the Jats even though he was not a credible scholar and academic of history and his theories would not stand up to scrutiny today. But he was a "Britisher" so all Jats naturally look to him as a father they wish was their own.

The most laughable claim made by Jats is telling lies to themselves that they are "Scythians" and they try to use Alexander Cunningham as their only "proof" for this.

I have read some braggings from Punjabi historians that Lahore of their Punjab once ruled Afghanistan. There is not a single evidence which says that Hindu Shahis of Kabul/Peshawar were originally from Lahore or any part of present-day Punjab.

So called 'Punjabis' have no history that is why they are always trying to link themselves to all the foreigners that had invaded and humiliated their ancestors and try to appropriate the history and culture of these invaders as their own.

These idiot Jats and other "low caste" people, aka Punjabis, think that they have something to do with Gandhara because British invented borders of "Punjab province" included Taxila in it. Stupid pakis always think that British invented borders of Pakiland and the internal British invented provincial boundaries are all 'historical' and have always existed like that.

Who are these Punjabis? They are not a nation and dont have any unique history or identity and did not exist historically under that name until the "British Raj" gave Punjab the identity that it has today. They are just part of the wider Indian people and are mainly made up of "low caste" Hindu communities like Jats, Awans, Arains, Gujjars, Cheemas, Chuhras, Lohars etc

The big majority of 'Punjabis' are Hindu 'shudra' people and 'Dalits' and 'Punjab' has historically always had the highest percentage and concentration of Hindu 'low castes' anywhere in India. That is their true and authentic 'history of Punjab', being a useless Dalit people.

Not only has 'Punjab' always been historically looked down upon by foreigners, it has also always been looked down upon by their fellow Hindus and Indians too and considered a 'polluted' place.

[Firdousi]

I have read some braggings from Punjabi historians that Lahore of their Punjab once ruled Afghanistan. There is not a single evidence which says that Hindu Shahis of Kabul/Peshawar were originally from Lahore or any part of present-day Punjab. It was Lahor (Chotta Lahor, Swabi, KP) which was associated with Hindu Shahis, not the Lahore of present-day Punjab.

Tarikh-i-Ferishta of 17th century, unaware of the existence of Lahor near Peshawar, assumed that Hindu Shahi capital was Lahore city of his times. He says ;

"The Afghans having procured reinforcements from Khulij, Ghoor, and Kabul, to the number of four thousand men, marched against the Indian forces. The two armies fought, in the five ensuing months, seventy actions ; but the winter setting in severely, the Indians were compelled to retreat to Lahore, an object which they effected with great difficulty. In the following spring the Indians again took the field, under their former general. The Afghans met them on a plain between Kirman (Kurram) and Pishawur, where several indecisive actions took place, till at length the rainy season being about to commence, the Indians took the opportunity of a temporary advantage which they had gained over the Afghans to retreat by forced marches, so as to cross the Neelab (Indus) while yet fordable. The same cause also induced the Mahomedans to return within their frontiers. About this period some disputes arising between the Gukkurs and the Raja of Lahore, this race formed a treaty of alliance, defensive and offensive with the Afghans, who compelled the Raja of Lahore to submit to terms from the Gukkurs, to whom he could otherwise himself have dictated conditions."

Ferishta was in possession of very early documents which are no longer extant. He himself might have assumed that the famous Lahore of his times in meant. But from the above passage, its obvious it was Lahor of Swabi . The action is taking place in Peshawar and Hindu Shahi forces would retreat to nearby Lahor of Swabi rather than all the way to Lahore of present-day Punjab.

Present-day Lahore city of Punjab was not rule of under Hindu Shahis

it reminds me of those annyoing Indians who claim Afghanistan was Hindu until Arabs took over and forced us to become Muslims. Stupidity has no limit I guess.

[a.s.takhar]

Punjabis, especially Jats, always cite Cunningham to make absurd and unsubstantiated claims about themselves and their history. Cunningham is like a 'god' for the Jats even though he was not a credible scholar and academic of history and his theories would not stand up to scrutiny today. But he was a "Britisher" so all Jats naturally look to him as a father they wish was their own.

The most laughable claim made by Jats is telling lies to themselves that they are "Scythians" and they try to use Alexander Cunningham as their only "proof" for this.



So called 'Punjabis' have no history that is why they are always trying to link themselves to all the foreigners that had invaded and humiliated their ancestors and try to appropriate the history and culture of these invaders as their own.

These idiot Jats and other "low caste" people, aka Punjabis, think that they have something to do with Gandhara because British invented borders of "Punjab province" included Taxila in it. Stupid pakis always think that British invented borders of Pakiland and the internal British invented provincial boundaries are all 'historical' and have always existed like that.

Who are these Punjabis? They are not a nation and dont have any unique history or identity and did not exist historically under that name until the "British Raj" gave Punjab the identity that it has today. They are just part of the wider Indian people and are mainly made up of "low caste" Hindu communities like Jats, Awans, Arains, Gujjars, Cheemas, Chuhras, Lohars etc

The big majority of 'Punjabis' are Hindu 'shudra' people and 'Dalits' and 'Punjab' has historically always had the highest percentage and concentration of Hindu 'low castes' anywhere in India. That is their true and authentic 'history of Punjab', being a useless Dalit people.

Not only has 'Punjab' always been historically looked down upon by foreigners, it has also always been looked down upon by their fellow Hindus and Indians too and considered a 'polluted' place.

dude, if you are really Afghan, then you need to know Afghans including Pashtuns are untouchable lower than lowest caste. It means Afghanistan is full of untochables with 100% of the population of Afghanistan being untouchables. Afghans have always been looked down upon by Hindus for that reason. Or in other words you speak out of your backside without knowing these things.

Hope you understand it bit better now.

[Kakar-Wardak]

dude, if you are really Afghan, then you need to know Afghans including Pashtuns are untouchable lower than lowest caste. It means Afghanistan is full of untochables with 100% of the population of Afghanistan being untouchables. Afghans have always been looked down upon by Hindus for that reason. Or in other words you speak out of your backside without knowing these things.

Hope you understand it bit better now.

Lol how can you look down on us, we ruled over you Dravadians.

[Nertj]

dude, if you are really Afghan, then you need to know Afghans including Pashtuns are untouchable lower than lowest caste. It means Afghanistan is full of untochables with 100% of the population of Afghanistan being untouchables. Afghans have always been looked down upon by Hindus for that reason. Or in other words you speak out of your backside without knowing these things.

Hope you understand it bit better now.

look who is talking





lol

[Charsi Malang]

dude, if you are really Afghan, then you need to know Afghans including Pashtuns are untouchable lower than lowest caste. It means Afghanistan is full of untochables with 100% of the population of Afghanistan being untouchables. Afghans have always been looked down upon by Hindus for that reason. Or in other words you speak out of your backside without knowing these things.

Hope you understand it bit better now.

Absolutely hilarious! You are treated as untouchables by the whole world. Even by people who don't know the concept of the untouchable class. How can you look down on anyone? You have been slaves for the better part of your existence......lol.

[Friends of Baloch]

dude, if you are really Afghan, then you need to know Afghans including Pashtuns are untouchable lower than lowest caste. It means Afghanistan is full of untochables with 100% of the population of Afghanistan being untouchables. Afghans have always been looked down upon by Hindus for that reason. Or in other words you speak out of your backside without knowing these things.

Hope you understand it bit better now.

Lol, look at this butt hurt retarded Dravidian of a 'Jut'.

Why do these spastic pakis always tell lies and try to apply what they are to other people that have nothing to do with them? Do they think it makes them feel less alone and less like the losers that only they exclusively are?

'Oye jutta', Afghans dont have castes and dont have a caste based culture like you do, you smelly onion chewing 'jut'.

There are no segregated villages, segregated wells, segregated places of worship, etc etc etc in Afghanistan and never were. Afghans have never been subjected to a "caste system". "Caste" is the culture and society of Indians, not of Afghans.

You Bundjabi baboons on the other hand are a "low caste" Hindu people that belong to a caste based culture and society and have been humiliated by your "low caste" status ever since the inception of this Indian culture of yours emerged some 3000 years ago.

The majority of Bunjabis are untouchable Dalits, followed by their fellow "low caste" "shudra" people like the Jats.

Even your fellow Dravidians from the other parts of India historically looked down on the northwest of India, now known as the 'Bundjab', as a 'polluted' place full of 'low castes' and 'untouchables' like you.

[Samandri]

From 17th century Italian writer Manucci who served in the Mughal army ;

"For, as I said already more than once, the Persians call the Indians their 'slaves' or 'black men." [Storia da Mogur, Vol-II, p-426]

"This province (Kabul) abounds in good horses, called Turki, also in large hairy camels; and it has many good fruits, the equal of those of Europe. It is very cold there; the people are fair, and they eat at tables like in Europe. They allow no black men (Indians) to sit down with them, and call them ghulam. [Storia da Mogur, Vol-II, p-426]

[Kakar-Wardak]

it reminds me of those annyoing Indians who claim Afghanistan was Hindu until Arabs took over and forced us to become Muslims. Stupidity has no limit I guess.

Lol if Afghans were Hindus why is there no indication of a caste system amongst us, Indic muslims may no longer be hindu but caste still exist among them, clear proof for their hindu origin.

[Friends of Baloch]

From 17th century Italian writer Manucci who served in the Mughal army ;

"For, as I said already more than once, the Persians call the Indians their 'slaves' or 'black men." [Storia da Mogur, Vol-II, p-426]

"This province (Kabul) abounds in good horses, called Turki, also in large hairy camels; and it has many good fruits, the equal of those of Europe. It is very cold there; the people are fair, and they eat at tables like in Europe. They allow no black men (Indians) to sit down with them, and call them ghulam. [Storia da Mogur, Vol-II, p-426]

"In 1654 the post of sipahsalar was left vacant and a year later the tupchibashi (cannon master) was made to retire. In the same year we hear of merchants being forced to take care of the upkeep of soldiers.[95]

None of this benefitted the Mughals enough to recover Qandahar. Supplied with heavy artillery brought in from Lahore, Dara Shikuh managed to take Bust, but the low quality of the stone cannon balls used by the Mughal army and the limited range of their medium-sized guns made it impossible for them to sustain a siege.[96] This, as well as organizational problems, intrigue, and a lack of military resolve, caused the expedition to fail, forcing the Mughals to retreat.[97]. Sanson, playing upon an age-old stereotype about Indian pusillanimity, argued that the Iranians held an inherent advantage over the Indians because their soldiers were superior, more disciplined fighters, which is why, in his words, Shah 'Abbas I had always sent fewer troops against the Mughals than they sent against the Iranians.[98] One observer even insisted that Shah Jahan's best soldiers were Iranians - presumably the ones who had defected from their own army - adding that the Mughal ruler could not "utilize them against their own king of Persia", and that his other crack troops, consisting of Rajputs, were no good against "men from cold countries".[99] According to Judasz Tadeusz Krusinski, Aurangzeb contemplated on mounting a new campaign to retake the city but was dissuaded by his sister with the argument that the military odds were against him, that failure would be a terrible blemish on the sultan's reputation, and that success would bring but small gain.[100] In the end, the reason that the city remained in Iranian hands until the Afghan revolt of 1709 probably owed as much to Indian ineptitude caused by internal rivalries as to Iranian military prowess."

- Page 125, Persia in Crisis: Safavid Decline and the Fall of Isfahan (2011: Rudi Matthee - John and Dorothy Munroe Distinguished Professor of History, University of Delaware)

Now let's see what the dictionary says:

"pusillanimity": the state or condition of being pusillanimous; timidity; cowardliness.

Cambridge dictionary: pusillanimous - weak and cowardly (= not brave); frightened of taking risks

Oxford dictionary: pusillanimous - Showing a lack of courage or determination; timid.

Merriam-Webster: pusillanimous - lacking courage and resolution : marked by contemptible timidity

So, "pusillanimity", age old stereotype about Punjabis that is hundreds of years old huh? Sounds about right. Oh "balle balle" !

[Kakar-Wardak]

Lol didn't the mughals conquere India with a few thousand soldiers from central Asia.

[Friends of Baloch]

Lol didn't the mughals conquere India with a few thousand soldiers from central Asia.

Yes. So called "Mughals" were actually tiny in number and never more than just a few thousand people, mostly men. Babur conquered India with just a few thousand Turks, and Homayoun did the same with around just 10,000 Iranian calvarymen that were loaned to him by the Safavids.

After Babur died the dynasty relied heavily on employing Iranian soldiers and courtesans to support them and keep them in power (who again were still small in number), but by the time Aurangzeb was ruling the 'Mughals' practically did not exist and it was almost entirely Indians that were serving their occupiers. That is probably why Aurangzeb only married Persians, he could see the writing on the wall but it was too late for them. He himself was hardly a 'Mughal' anyway, his mother was a Persian and his father was more than half Indian (both Jahangir and Shah Jahan had Hindu mothers).

[salman47]

Thats why after Afghan Revolt, Mughal Empire became like dust. Afterwards being stepped over by Euros!