History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c28.s1.28

v2.c28.s1.28

But Dr. Bhandarkar has adduced the further argument that these Pratihāras of Kanauj were called Gujars by the Rāshṭrakūṭas in their inscriptions and also by the Arabs in their accounts of travel. These two facts cannot be contested and the Rāshṭrakūṭas and the Arabs often were allies in their fights with the Pratihāras of Kanauj. When the Rāshṭrakūṭa grants refer to their battles with Gurjaras they mean the Kanauj kings, for these alone were powerful enough to fight with them and these indeed were the overlords of a very large part of Northern India; and so also the Arabs speak of the kingdom of Kanauj when they speak of the kingdom of Juzr. But does this fact prove that the kings of Kanauj were Gujars by caste? Because Indians call the Mahomedans Yavanas does it prove that the Mahomedans are Greeks by race or descent? In the thirteenth century and later the Rajputs called all Mahomedans Turakadā from their first fight with the Turks viz., Mahmud of Ghazni; does that show that every Mahomedan that came to India whether he be Afghan or Persian was a Turk by race or caste? The argument is in short ineffectual and cannot weigh against the facts which distinctly show that the Pratihāras were Sūrya-Vaṁśi Rajputs or Kshatriyas by caste. As the Arabs of Sind were on the east bounded by the Gurjaratrā country which was then the name of South Rajputana and as the country was ruled by the Pratihāras it was but natural that the Arabs called the country and the king by the name of Juzr and indeed the Rāshṭrakūṭas too called them Gurjaras for the same reason.