balochracehistor00damerich

1G THE B A LOCH RACE
the first two, neither of which has any right to the name
Baloch. They differ from the true Baloch in every respect,
and I am only dealing with the latter, which Dr. Bellew
here calls Bind. The true historical name is Baloch, and
I shall be able to show how the Binds obtained their
prominence among the Northern Baloches, which has led
to the confusion of names. "When he comes to the Baloch
properly speaking, he gives a list of forty-two names of
tribes, which he proceeds to deduce from various Indian
originals. I say Indian, as he does not confine himself to
Chauhans, or even to Bajputs, but includes Brahmans,
Jatts, and low-caste tribes. Out of the forty-two names,
eleven are unknown to me—viz., Bari, Utan, Kaodai
(perhaps a Sindhi method of writing Korai), Katwar, Korwa,
Landi, LattI, Malai, Men, Sajodi, and Baksh. The lastnamed
perhaps stands for Baksham, a Brahoi tribe and
small Baloch clan. None of these can be found either as
tribal or clan names.
Of the remainder, six—viz., Gichkl, Khetran, Lorl,
MamasanI, Med, and Marwari—cannot strictly be called
Baloch.
The Gichkl are an assimilated tribe of Mekran, now
speaking the Balochi language, and commonly classed as
Baloch ;
but they are known to be of comparatively recent
Indian origin— some accounts say Sikh, and some Bajput.
Their settlement in Mekran was not earlier than the latter
part of the seventeenth century. It is very likely that the
tribe comprises some true Baloch elements. Dr. Bellew
makes Gichkl equivalent to Kajki, and derives it from the
Kachwaha Bajputs, which is clearly impossible on philo-
logical grounds. The termination kl, commonly used in
Sindhi to form adjectives (such as Balochki, Jatki, BrahuJki,
etc.), shows that the name must be of Sindhi origin.
The Khetrans are also a tribe of undoubtedly Indian
origin, occupying a tract in the Sulaiman Mountains,
between the Baloch and Pathan tribes, and still speaking
their original Indian language—a dialect peculiar to them-