Jump to content

Talk:Gakhars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mobeen.raja (talk | contribs) at 09:41, 3 December 2006 (→‎Origins). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconIndia Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

pete 11:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Kokhar (Jat)and Gakhar (Sassanian) origin confusion.

It must be stated here the immense confusion with regards to these 2 distinct clans. Jats claim Kokhars are a Jatt group, but the 'Gakhars' who claim to be Sassanid in origin then also claim to be Kokhars by stating Jasrat and Sheikha to be their Gakhars and not Kokhars. This is in direct conflict with the Kayanid origin theory and also contradicts the point in the article where it the writer distinguishes themselves from Fereishta's accounts as 'they are confused with another tribe' and that Gakhars are different. This is a strange issue and needs to be resolved asap to avoid crossing of one's history to another tribe. The Jat page also has this issue. Can someone please clear this issue up once and for all?

The article clearly reflects the genuine confusion in early historical sources between the Gakhar and the Khokhar. Hopefuly with further research this author will be able to clear up the confusion. For instance if Jasrat and Sheikha mentioned by Ferishta are Ghakars or some other clan. The main body of article decides to follow mainstream opinon and Ferishta account of the Ghakhars. See Gakkhar, A. S Bazmee Ansari, in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed.,Edited by J.H.Kramers et al, E.J Brill, Leiden, pp.972-74.

Tatar Khan

Although he was indeed maternally linked to Hati Khan Gakhar he was not a Gakhar himself.

Interesting... but this is not what Babur wrote in his Baburnama! Babur did state the the Janjua were old enemies of the Gakhars so the 'Janjua family tree' might be unreliable. Please fully referance the source of your information.

But I must say here Sir, that the Janjuas being enemies of the Gakhars is no reason for them to fabricate their ancestral records to those of the Gakhar! This point is very naive. Where their records clearly show a Gakhar wife, they show it distinctly.--Raja 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested in the relationship between the Gakhars and the Janjua as the two most powerful clans in the region. My point was that tribal family trees are not usually considered a reliable or accurate historical source (especially 500 years ago!) and that tribal histories are usually coloured by feuds. I do not claim that Tatar Khan was a Gakhar, I report that Babur regarded Tatar as a Gakhar (described as "the cousin of Hati Khan"). Do the Janjua have a published history that I can consult?

Contradictory information.

One the Potwar page, it states that Mahmud Ghazni gave Potwar to Kai Gohar for his good service to him as someone who aided his invasion into India. But on this page it states that the Gakhars opposed and wrought much damage to Ghazni's army on the Mahmud section. Why is this article full of so many contradictions and as of yet no Gakhar historian (with respect) has been able to shed any light to this? In it's current form, if they opposed Ghazni and were the barbarian race of nomads, then the Kayanid Sassanian theory is therefore false.

The relevent early historical sources are confused and contridictory as most medeival histories are. The Gakhars preserve their Sassanian origins. Ferishta, the early history most mainstream academic opinion accepts, gives us a different history.See Gakkhar, A. S Bazmee Ansari, in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed.,Edited by J.H.Kramers et al, E.J Brill, Leiden, pp.972-74.

I accept your sources. But the confusion here is that if the Kokhars were used in teh Hindu Shahi armies against Ghazni, how then can Kai Gohar appear as a Gakhar/Kokhar chief and fight alongside him opposing them as a non Indian/Persian chief? i.e. they must have been in Punjab and well established before the coming of Kai Gohar (if the Kai Gohar theory is to be believed) I am asking because till date this confusing point hasn't been appropriately addressed and my Gakhar friends are perturbed at this and would like to know.

Please dont be offended by any questions of mine here, I have Gakhar blood in me also and I have respect for this clan and have many friends who I am trying to make aware of their roots and your information here has been pretty good thus far. Excellent work, please continue :) --Raja 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way offended by your contributions providing you provide fully referanced sources for them. On this point, clearly the Gakhars belive that they came from outside India with Ghazni and with his authority took over the (native) Khokhar territory, the Khokhars being the folks described by Ferishta as attacking the Ghazni lines "charging with head and feet bare and armed with verious weapons". I am happy to admit that other than the Gakhar legends there is no evidence for this at all. Ferishta is regarded as a fairly reliable source but of course hes is only a secondary historical source writing centuries after the event so again his account is suspect. So we have two, different and equally poorly substantiated accounts of the orgin of the Gakhars and I have presented both without bias.

Thats good to hear, I am satisfied with your intention. You mentioned about clan historians being bigotted etc. I have found this everywhere, believe me, so it's hard to accept another historians intentions without fully hearing them out. In your case, you seem to have come across them too. I am VERY interested in the relationship between the Janjua and Gakhars as I have the blood of both clans and it's my passion. Sadly as you have mentioned, our native regions dont always accomodate literary texts which are freely available so 2nd and 3rd hand info is usually all that is available.

With regards to Tatar Khan, my point is that the Gakhar and Janjua have intermarried over centuries and still do. Despite both being staunchly proud, they have considered the other respectable and warlike enough to intermarry for centuries e.g. the reference of Raja Mal Janjua also indicates their alliances in the past as the earliest record of a Ghakhar and Janjua alliance (as recorded in Tarikh e alfi and in the book 'History of India as told by it's own historians', V, p.163-4) now interestingly in this record it states that a Rai Mal allied with a group of Kokhars who dwelt in the mountains between Lahore and Kabul, this alliance also led to intermarriage, but our records show that this wife from the Kokhars was referred in our records as a Gakhar Rani. Both being dominant tribes, intermarriage between them must have continued for political reasons etc too. Now it is also mentioned that a Darwesh Khan reclaimed his land from a Gakhar Kayani Chief. The animosity seems to have started at around this period or just before. The Janjua family tree shows that a Tatar Khan Janjua (who had been assasinated and his land claimed) was the son of Darwesh Khan. Plus also the father of Malik Hast Asad, another Janjua chief had lost his family too I believe to the same Hati Khan. Therefore the animosity was very high (and understandably so between them, at this stage) My belief is that they are most likely cousins from before Hati Khan's time, but for some reason (power struggle, rivalry etc.) from Hati Khan's time things went a bit wrong. It is often the case that local powerful clans intermarried, hence they were likely to be cousins. They were both very tribal, similar chieftainship, both were very early converts to Islam and also territorial allies of the same regions. Both also rebelled together at times against the Delhi Sultanate, but after the Hati Khan episode, I believe they were on better terms from the Mughal period onwards.

Sorry for the long post, but great to converse on the subject and I'd be delighted to work alongside you to find out more about these 2 powerful clans. --Raja 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some further sources

I have recently made contact with the Gakhar federation of Rawalpindi/Pakistan and if you would provide me your email (best is to get an account here and we can email eachother freely without your email being divulged if you would like). From what I am told by them, a Shajra does indeed exist connecting to Sasaan Ibn Bauman. Their representative also informed me that they are indeed very distinct from Kokhar Jatts and are in no way related to them. I believe that beyond much of their possible rhetoric, they may have some valuable sources of information on this subject for you? To be honest, in such endevours, any and every bit of info is useful to help piece a puzzle together. I'd be more than happy to help consult some other sources for you also.

Unsubstantiated edits

I have removed some POV additions made by a user this week. Unless a sourced account is provided for the negation of the articles presented points (re theory of their origins, Sassanid etc) they shouldn't be presented as credible points.

Points to discuss;

"Gakhars claims of a Persian origin are not substantiated by historical facts, in fact most historians deriving their conclusions from historical sources are of the view that Gakhars like other Jat and Rajput tribes of the region are of White Hun / Scythian origin and thereby descendants of hill tribes of the North-West."

Reference needed for this. Although highly plausible, this theory relates to many tribes, but this tribe is not mentioned by a contemporary source of that age, so a reference from a source is required here.

"After conversion to Islam many tribes of the North-west started tracing their origins to the Middle east. In fact, these tribes often tie their lineage to muslim saints or conquerors who converted them to Islam. Gakhars until recently claimed that they converted to Islam before the reign of Sabuktigin and they served in his army, even though there is irrefutable evidence derived from historical writings of muslim historians that Gakhars were still non-muslim as late as the invasion of Muhammad of Ghor at the beginning of the 13th century. The earlier conversion to Islam is not substantiated by historical evidence, but the theory of a pre-islamic Persian origin is still put froward."

This is a common mistake when one researches the Gakhars. The name is similar to Kokhar and hence there is a (as mentioned above by Pete, a genuine confusion between both tribes, especially if one were to consider that the sources were foreign in the first place too)
Gakhars have never alleged Islamic or Saintly origins and this point is therefore inapplicable to them. The book, Tareekh e Gakharaan ("History of the Gakhar") actually disputes that Gakhars assasinated Ghori. Infact the fact that no historian prior to Ferishta mentioned the Gakhars as Ghori's assasins, but Kokhars as so should be indicative of this. Ferishta (a historian) himself has frequently made mistakes between both these distinct tribes.
This point was included in this article because some references have claimed so (even if by mistake but still fair to mention), and hence can be put forward for the reader to make their own mind up, which is fair.

"There are however some historical facts that could link the Gakhars to the ancient Persians."

This is now at odds with the above statements attempting to negate their Persian Origin.

"The tribes of white Huns that entered the sub-continent around the 6th century occupied the region of central Asia in what is now Tajikistan, which was and still is in fact the only culture in Central Asia related to the ancient Persians."

This needs to be clearly referenced as to how this is applicable to the Hill tribes of India. In fact the Parsi community of India is also Persian and follows Zoroastrian faith and culture too.

"The most plausible explanation is still derived from historical facts. It is a well known fact that Persian speaking people from many clans were the first Muslims to settle in the area populated by the Gakhars. They were the people responsible for large scale conversions of the tribes of that region to Islam most prominent among them being the Gakhars."

Plausible point, and can remain.

"The Persian legends they trace their history to may have been the legends passed on to the Gakhars after conversion. Many prominent Persian clans still have genealogies going as far back as the pre-islamic Zorastrian era."

Again, this needs to be referenced by a source.

Another point re the titles is that Gakhars have used and still use Sultan. It is a Middle Eastern title bestowed to them by Mughal Emperor Babur (Sultan Hathi Gakhar was the first) and is still in practice by the current Sultan of the Gakhars, Sultan Erij Zaman Khan. A branch of Adamals use Mirza which was bestowed after intermarriage with the Gakhars (the title was issued to all Muslim royal houses from daughters were taken in marriage by the Mughal Emperors) so to allege they have started using recently is incorrect.

The main problem here is that Gakhar history is very elusive as it is interesting. Some historians even noted them as descendants of the Gargaridaes of Dionysius. I have come to agree with the maturity of Pete's work in that all referenced theories of their origin must be presented fairly and for the reader to decipher, agree or disagree. To push our points is not allowed on Wikipedia. Hence please accomodate this article and Wiki by referencing. I can help you out if you wish.--Raja 14:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

"The earliest Gakhars in Pakistan arrived in circa 6,000BC in the period of Fridun. They moved to Pakistan as friends of to the Raja of Lahore . A portion of them dwelt in northern India. Much later, during the Islamic conquest of Iran, another, likely larger, wave of the tribe moved to Kashmir, then to Baltistan (Tibet), Afghanistan (Kabul) and finally to Punjab. It appears that the movement has been in waves."

The above has been removed as it is conflicting with the rest of the info on the page i.e. Gakhars entered India in 6,000BC, and the Sassanid dynasty established itself around 226AD, then it is impossible that the Gakhars in Pakistan are in no way related to the Sassanians as their name comes from the father of the first King Ardeshir, High Priest Sassaan Ibn Bauman.

Also citations needed for the confusing Aryan tribe that became Turkish, then Aryan again before becoming Indian/Punjabi.....

I heard some one talking about reference to Gakhar Federeation in Rawalpindi, kindly message me if you want any contacts with a few people that I know who run that organisation. (Mobeen)