The word ‘Baloch’

I may here allude to the derivation of the word ‘Baloch’ from the Sanskrit

‘Mlechha,’ which Mr. Crooks brought forward in the discussion on Sir T.
Holdich’s paper above alluded to. The derivation is not a new one. Von Bohlen
suggested it long ago, and Lassen dismissed it

1 as resting on an unsupported

guess. He added: ‘It is sufficient to remark that Mlechha was never specially
used in Indian writings of the non-Indian races to the west of the Indus, but
applied to all barbarians without distinction. Also the difference between the two
names is so great that no comparison should be made without the strongest
reasons.’
To this it may be added that the word Baloch was in use long before the
movement of the tribes to the Indian frontier, or even into Mekran. It is found in
the Arab chroniclers of the early part of the tenth century and in the ‘Shahnama,’
and its origin should be sought rather in Persia than in India.
No explanation of the name Baloch as yet given appears to be satisfactory.
Natives of India in the present day say that it comes from ‘bad-log,’ or bad
people, regarding which explanation no remarks are necessary! The Baloches
themselves say it is a corruption of ‘bar-luch,’

bar meaning the wilderness, and

luch

nakd, owing to their progenitor, the offspring of Mir Hamza and a penri,

having been found abandoned in the wilderness.
R. B. Hetu Ram, in his ‘Balochi-nama,’ says: ‘In the language of Halab, dwellers
on the skirt of the hills and in the mountains are called Baloch.