Talk:Khokhar

Origin

I have come across some sources that claim, similar to the Awan, Khokhar (Muhammad Shah) to be one of the sons of qutab Shah and a truce reached between the invading forces with a local Rajput raja by marrying his daughter to Qutab Shah's son; Khokhar. Hence the Khokhar Rajput title, some people claim the confusion of origin to be to be caused by different Rajput/Jat tribes which are geographically related, such as the Khokharan and the khakhar. There's some further information and sources in the wiki Kukhran article and alot of the avilable information regarding Muslim Khokhars has been put together in a book called 'Punjabi Muslmans by Lt. Col. j.m' .Khokhar (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive vandal edits by 86.96.228.86 and others

Practically all the Referenced content from reliable and verifiable sources with citations
has been vandal deleted by anonymous user 86.96.228.86
with this edit of 8th May
This vandal has also deleted the entire discussion page
Other users have added citations from non reliable websites.,
Revision as of , 17 August 2008 JaGa is about where after the vandalism started
Intothefire (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Article restored

I was able to restore the article to before the massive deletions and have since made some changes to the layout and added many new sources. In the future could people please discuss any major changes before removing sourced and verified material otherwise it will be considered vandalism and ip addresses reported. Khokhar (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding 'origin'

I'm going to move some of the information refuting khokhar/awan arab ancestry to the 'Hindu/Sikh view section (where it should be) as it's not shared by most Muslims and removing the items which are repeated, also most of it is originally sourced from the works of H. A. Rose; who himself took it from the writings of local Muslim historians translated in 'The History of India, as told by its own Historians' and even states that he is assuming the Gakhar to be the same as Khokhar [[1]], this has already been refuted in the 'differing theories of origin' section.

On a side note, almost every source has said that the Awan/Khokhar themselves (the vast majority of whom are Muslim) have always and invariably claimed ancestry from Qutb Shah (some as early as 1016) and it's the historians/bystanders making assumptions to the contrary[[2]]. Khokhar (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done some research regarding the claim

“ Almost 60% of the population of the Punjab comprises of Rajputs and Jats and the various branches of their race such as Awans , Khokhar , and Khattars , Janjuas , Arains Gujjars etc , though the Awans , Khokhars and Khatars claim common ancestory from Qutb Shah , who is said to have come from Ghazni with Mahmud Ghazni , scholars hold the view that they were most probably converted by Qutb Shah during Mahmud Ghaznnavi reign and were not his descendents . This tendency of claiming foreign origin by some of the local tribes is not uncommon. Even admittedly rajput tribes of famous ancestry such as the Khokhar , have begun to follow the example of claiming connection with the Mughal conquerors of India or the Qureshi cousins of the prophet. ”

The only place I have come across this is in the book 'Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India' By B.S. Nijjar, and he makes no mention of either Ahmed Abdulla or Syed Abdul Quddus in his bibliography section and doesn't clearly mention any source for his claims. The only other place I can trace this to is on the geocities site (word for word) and that site makes a lot of claims most of the time without any sources, however IIRC they do quote Ahmed Abdulla on a few occasions.

In any case, unless there is more reliable and non-pov evidence to suggest otherwise, the above quote should be removed from the main article and we can continue to discuss it here. The other claims refuting the 'Muslim view' (mostly taken from H A Rose) have in fact already been discussed and proven to the contrary in both the first section of the 'Muslim view' and in the 'differing theories of origin' section, I see no reason why they should be repeated in different places specially as the the current sources have already been disapproved, unless there are other reliable sources to back this, they should also be moved to the discussion page.Khokhar (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• All respected historians agree that Khokhars fought Mahmud of Gazna. They obviously existed before him. For example Tabakat-i-Nasiri of Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani written in 658 H., (1260 CE) which covers period A. H. 194 (810 A.D.) to A.H. 658 (1260 A.D.) says so.
• It is impossible for the progeny of one person X to form a community. Did children of X decide to marry only among themselves? Why?

--Vikramsingh (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The section states that they married local women, also both points of view seem to be well represented and sourced information exists for both, making it difficult to arrive at a single conclusion.Khokhar (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the difficulty? All original and ancient sources agree that Khokhars fought Mahmud of Gazna (also see Taj-ul Maasir of 1205 AD in addition to Tabakat-i-Nasiri). The theory that Khokhars are descendants of a non-Indian conqueror is modern and bogus.

Let us presume that some conqueror Qutb Shah came and married a Khokhar woman. Does that mean Khokhars should gove up their own forefathers and start claiming descent from a conquering foreigner?

The sources cited in the article clearly say the Arab origin theory is bogus.

Tribes and peoples get defeated. That is reality. But should children of those who get defeated start claiming that they are really children of the conqueror, and not of their own fathers?--Vikramsingh (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but we are talking about people and so we have to take into account their views as expressed by the historians as well as other sources and views available, in this case all the historians agree that the 'Khokhars themselves refer to Qutb Shah as their ancestor' hence why this view must be shown and there seems to be many sources that agree, traditionally, most people take their father's clan/tribe as their own and so it's quite right that they would say that, end of the day Qutb Shah would be their ancestor regardless of how he found himself in that position i.e whether it was because of him marrying in to Khokhars or his son being the 'Khokhar'. Another important point is that in the Punjab people are already very mixed, this especially the case in the western Punjab as many west asian tribes have an extremey strong presense making it quite normal to claim/or be of Arab/Iranian/central asian origin, in fact the Khokahr tribe is known for marrying in to the Sayyids (Arabs), this of course has been the case for centuries.

The other issue that plays a part here is that many historians (Notably Frishta) kept confusing the Khokhars and Gakhars making it difficult to be completely sure that it was the Khokhars and not the Gakhars that fought Ghazni and killed Ghori, again all the sources that seem to be easily avialble have been represented. The fact is That the Khokahrs are an immensely large Tribe that was at tyhe forefront of almost every invasion and war that effected the Subcontinent, in many cases they were not alone so many Historians have decided that it's simply not practical to seperate the Khokhars and Awans or even Gakhars, though a strong case is placed on the Khokhars and not the Gakhars being responsable for most of the History contained in this article. Khokhar (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also I'm going to have to revert your edits as this very matter is being discussed below and you are welcome to take part, also the minaret are related because they are from 'Herat' where Qutb shah is said to have come from and the Qutb Shahi's are Muslim. Khokhar (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Firishta was a later historian, but his work is based on the work of earlier Muslim historians (for example Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani etc.). In any case Firishta is a far more respected author than recent inventors of history.

In Pakistan, and even in India and Bangladesh, there are numerous individuals who claim descent from the Arabs, even though they look completely like their Hindu counterparts from that region.--ISKapoor (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Restoring a post from this discussion in the archives

The discussion page was archived sooner than required here ...any way I had posted a message earlier which I am posting again as it pertains to the discussion and development of this article .

Khokhars Jats , Arabs  ?

There are implicit indicators that point to Khokhars being descended from the Khokhrans specially considering not only various cultural caste and historical cross references between these two but also that both Khokhars and Khokhrans were invariably neighbors living in the same region along the Jhelum and in areas in the proximity of the salt range .

But first a look at another question as to the validity and how the Khokhars came to be recorded sometimes as Jats or of Arab extraction .
The origin of the misplaced notion or belief that Khokhars are also Jats may be squarely attributed to the various district Gazette of the Punjab from the late 1800s and then the published glossary’s of A H Rose on the Castes and Tribes of the Punjab based on Ibbetsons census reports .
Fact is that the English themselves were confounded by the definition of who fell into the classification of a Jat , often being further puzzled by how to differentiate Jat from Rajput and other agriculturist people . That they were candid enough to record this (confusion) themselves not once but umpteem times is creditable but this confusion reflected in their own records . Often contradictory information is recorded in preceding paras or lines and nothing denotes this more than their recordings on Khokhars where Khokhars are alluded to being Jats then Rajputs and then neither of the two Jats or Rajput but a great race .

Consider the following text from the Gazetteer of the Shahpur District -

“ ' There are other tribes again which call themselves neither Jat nor Rajput , and yet evidently belong to the same great races the others . For instance the Khokhars , who have been here reckoned separetely in this census , some times claim to be descended from Qutb Shah of Ghazni , and so to be of Arab descent , but many of them return themselves as Rajput or Jat and there can be no doubt that they are of the same race as their neigbours .The Awans again make a still stronger claim to Arab Origin , but they too are probably of the same race as the Jats .

Another distinction arises in this way . An ordinary Jat attains some fame as a holy man , and hands the saintly character down to his descendents , who are called pirs or Miyanas . After a generation or two they claim an Arab origin , and as the fancy takes them call themselves either Sayad or Koreshi ;soon their true origin is forgotten and the Arab origin is believed by themselves and generally admitted by their neighbours .

”

Intothefire (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC) to be continued ..
Cheers
Another factor to be considered is that Mahmud Ghazni was himself not Arab .Nor were the original people of Ghazni Muslim ...even till the time of Mahmud Ghazni , Islam itself came to those areas of Afghanistan significantly as a contribution of Ghazni .More reliable references on Qutb Shah as ruler of Herat or saint or soldier would improve this article.Was he the king of Herat ? in the same period as Mahmud was ruling from Ghazni ? ,who preceded him as king of Herat ? and or how did he or his family come to rule Herat till the time of Ghazni
Intothefire (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mahmud Ghazni was Turkish (i.e. was from Turkistan, his father was a slave.).--Vikramsingh (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Faik ,the governor of Herat for King Nuh IIISamanid, at the time of Mahmud Ghazni

The governor of Herat at the time of Sebük Tigin,(the father of Mahmud Ghazni) was Faik .
Faik was a a powerful but insubordinate governor of Nuh111,.
Nuh III was the seventh of the Samanid line ..
Faik had been punished by Nuh III.
Faik made overtures to Bogra Khan an Ughar Khan of Turkistan ..
Bogra Khan entered Herat and became its master , as the Samanids fled,betrayed at the hands of Faik who had been entrusted by Nuh 111 for its defence..
In 994 Nuh 111 invites Alptagin to come to his aid ..
Alptagin along with Mohmud Ghazni defeat Faik and take Herat , Nishapur and Tus .
Herat annexed to Ghazni.
Intothefire (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Qutb Shah

Most references of Qutb shah I have come across, though detailed, are in either Persian or Urdu, one I posted above, they show him to be both a soldier and a preacher, a historically common trait for Muslims. He had settled in Herat ( originally from Baghdad) and joined Mahmud of Ghazna on his conquest of Hind, Herat like most of that region had been under the Control of the Caliphate and various large periodic Muslim empires so governeres/rulers of areas changed quite frequently especially inline with ongoing geographic expansions. At the time Afghanistan was still one of the boundary regions of Islamic conquest so it is quite understandable that not all these areas had fully accepted Islam. I am in the process of looking for further sources that may shed more light on this matter. Khokhar (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC

• I see the point you are making about Qutb Shah is that he was a soldier and preacher of Islam ,who had settled in Herat.
• As you can see from the above quoted and reference content on this page ,
  

that Qutb Shah was not the ruler of Herat at the time of Mahmud Ghazni or his two immediate predecessors .

• The ruler of Herat at the time of Ghazni was a person called Faik a powerful noble who governed on behalf of King Nuh III Samanid .
• The article currently states Qutb Shah was a ruler of Herat . Qutb Shah was not the ruler of Herat durying the time of Ghazni . This is incorrect information in the article , and needs deletion/correction . Please delete this .
• Will carry on the discussion later .

Intothefire (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the same information (sourced) you posted:

"In 994 Nuh III invited Alptagin to come to his aid . Alptagin along with Mohmud Ghazni defeated Faik and annexed Herat , Nishapur and Tus".

At the time when Ghazni took power and began his campaigns against Hind, which is documented to be after 994 A.D., Faik had already been deposed. Mahmud had also sworn allegiance to the Caliphate, therefore it is quite probable that someone, such as the figure Qutb Shah, may have been appointed by the Caliph into a powerful position to accompany Ghazni on his campaigns. Most sources, when commenting about the figure of Qutb Shah, identify him, like Faik before him, as the 'Governor' of Herat at the time of Mahmud's rule, and thus the word 'Ruler' does seem incorrect as that title would be held by Mahmud himself. However more research is needed before any concrete conclusion can be reached, The mentioned word could be changed but I recommend we wait until more information becomes available.

I can also translate some of the sourced information I have across, the link I posted earlier contains a poem by Chandar barda courtier/poet of Raja Prithvi Raj, here he describes Qutb Shah's sons (by individual names) accompanying Mahmud when he took Lahore and it also contains an extract from the non-english book 'tareekhe mukhzane Hind' by 'Munshi Hanuman Prashaad' page 123, here the author, in Persian, describes the arrival of a man 'Mir Qutb' from Baghdad, the word 'Mir' is commonly associated to leader (sometimes spiritual) , however in this instance it probably just records Qutb Shah being a respected figure within the ranks of Mahmud's army. Khokhar (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Who was this "Qutb Shah"? We have detailed accounts of Mahmud of Ghazna (Ghaznavi). There were several scholars in his court. There have been numerous Muslim historians who covered this period, from Al Biruni to Firishta. Has anyone mentioned this "Qutb Shah"? I am familiar with Prithviraj Raso, there are several versions of the manuscripts, all of them well known to be of late origin.--Vikramsingh (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at the Awan clan page as they also mention him, in any case 'who' he was isn't that relevant in the sense as the historians have all mentioned him in relation to the Khokhar clan and in fact other historians have mentioned him in particlular but those sources are not english so have not been included in the article, however there is a link or two on this page. Khokhar (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if we assume was a Qutb Shah, he could not have been the father of the entire tribe, (which obviously existed before Mahmud Ghaznavi), perhaps at best a few families. Thus he cannot be considered to be a founder figure. Thus he does not deserve prominence in the article.

If the 'tribe', or the larger part ( north/west Punjab), itself says he is the father (as every historian has mentioned) then who am I or you to complain, it's all well sourced Khokhar (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And the fifth minar of Herat has nothing whatsoever to do with Qutb Shah, even if he existed; since it is from a much later period.--Vikramsingh (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, because then none of the pictures have anything to do with this article as even the lahore fort pic is from a few years ago.Khokhar (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

General Clean up

A lot of information is being repeated or is otherwise unclear/misleading in it's current form, an e.g would be the mention of Khokhars and Mohammed Ghori being repeated in two separate places and being somewhat contradicting in it's current form, short of restructuring the article, this information should either be merged into one or there needs to be an attempt to reconcile it more objectively. As it stands, we will end up with constant repetitions and information posted in an unrelated and unstructured manner, to avoid this I will continue to reconcile the mentioned section and could other editors also try to check for repetitions and avoid contradictions as any new sourced material should be either added to the same section or an attempt needs to be made to objectively merge already present related information Khokhar (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC).

Questionable Quality of many references

• This article cites numerous references from non reliable sources which can not be considered Legitimate , such content needs to be removed .

Intothefire (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Such as? Here's one already mentioned here [3]Khokhar (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Khokhars

An extensive new section with the above heading has been added, grammar aside, it's not sourced and so I have added a citation and clean up tag. Unless a reliable source can be quoted some time soon, I think it should be moved to this page and it can be discussed further here. Khokhar (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved here for further discussion:

History History of Khokhar

Seven hundred year ago before Christ (700, BC) on the land of Indus had been several tribes, Wership many gods ,few hadbeen worship snak, monkey, birds ,aunts cows . There had been war amang the tribes ,reason gods worship,same agree to believe on snake same others. There was a man ,he was very respectable person among there. He called Ashhorik . He had seven sons,he had a one son his name was Ashhoka,and he was physically powerful bold, strong, heavyweight, tall and good looking. He called all leaders of tribes,and said to them ,”you don’t fight each other for your gods ,evry one give racepact your gods and come to live together” ,every one accepted his suggestion and obey and live togather,and he got five hundred wives from there tribes,he bild good and beautiful houses for away from there tribes. And he choose one lady from five hundred wives ,as on special place ,Queen she had name Sitahhra. After that all tribes called to Ashhoka ,leader and king they given hem title “Ashhoka the great”. His wives given borth to many boys ,and all children calld Rajput ,there living area called Rajasthan.. Sitahhra had given birth three boys,her first son’s name was Bhart. After birth of bhart king ashhoka started to call all tribes ,these are same as my son ,Bhart. After that all tribes people came to visit king Ashhoka place. King Ashhoka asked who want came to me. Tribes people said to him we are your Bhart. It means we are all your children. After that, all tribes get name of Bhart in Love ,Ashhoka ,because he called, that all tribes are my sons.at last every one feel proud call in name of Bhart. Those people lived round over all tribes. Thay gave name as a country tham Bhart. When Bhart get marrige with one girl her name Purapy,she gave birth five baby boys. There name had (1)Khokhar (2)Nokhar (3)Cheema (4)Chtha (5)Choohan. In this time all these name spread in the world ,belong king family. Family of Ashhoka ,he was son of Ashhorik, he was greand father of Bhart,Bhart was name of India,and who is present, Hindustan . Ashhoka gave name to land of Indus. On his first son Bhart ,as a country. Khokhar was first son of Bhart Bhart get birth by Queen of Ashhoka the great. His name was Sitahhra. . Khokhar (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

lol ..... : )
Intothefire (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The history of Ashoka is very well known. Please see "Asoka & Decline Of Mauryas" Romila Thapar History Oxford University Press 1998.--Vikramsingh (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits and references

I have reverted some recent edits by user:Sikh-history and explained each reversion in the edit details, generally it's due to references not being correct (full version of H.A Rose's punjab tribes is available from a link in the main article's external links section) also the numbers for some mentioned tribes are inmaterial and so do not need to be mentioned in main section, even H.A Rose in the very next sentence (after mentioning the smaller tribes) goes on to refer to khokhars as only Rajput and Jat, which accounts for approximately 99% of Khokhars. Also can we avoid references (in the main section at least) from nationalistic/religious sites that do not meet wiki's npov standard.Khokhar (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ps. the 'Bahi roop Chand Khokhar' page doesn't exist so in light of relevance and keeping the section tidy he may be moved to the top of 'non existant' biography article, or fourth from top. Khokhar (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The references do exist, and you should give me an opportunity to discuss before deleting valid references. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious Problems with WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:COI

I have raised the above issues with admins.

• http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/personalities/Bhai%20Roop%20chand/BRcj.htm Khokhar Rajputs intermingled with Tarkhan Tribes - on Bhai Roop Chand Khokhar deliberretly deleted.
• Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Panjab Castes - page 313 - cites Tarkhans as Khokhar gotra
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&pg=RA6-PA539&lpg=RA6-PA539&dq=Khokhar+hindu+origins&source=bl&ots=qKYa9_db67&sig=OAN3R3cv3mDQEWBQtD8kEQl8Uok&hl=en&ei=7gN8StGZCYjSjAeq6a2IBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=Khokhar%20hindu%20origins&f=false Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan cites Arains and Churahs as Khokhar again deleted and WP:SYNTH done by an editor.

Thanks--Sikh-History 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk, does not meet the wikipeida WP:NPOV standard or WP:COI as 'neutral' historical sources are required.
• Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Panjab Castes - page 313, talks about the The Gujar Elemants and the only mention of Khokhars describes them being Chandarbansi and a section of the Rawal clan from karnal claiming Khokhar heritage.

Almost everything in this article has multiple references, takes into account all views, again with multiple refrences, and bases assendency in relevence to demographic representation. This means it takes into account WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:COI, no tags are required. Any disagreement can be taken to WP:Dispute Resolution.

Khokhar (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is still an element of WP:OWN, and WP:SYNTH. You cannot delete refrences that are valid. You can state, such and such article disagrees or later on this happens, but you cannot delete. If you do that, then WP:NPOV is not maintained.

• http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk - meets wikistandards because it is a referenced website and the article in question is cited.In anycase I can add many other refrences. Even the Bagrian family site here.
• Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Panjab Castes - page 313 - you are clearly wrong or do not have the book at hand. Here is the EXACT quote:
• 1) Jhangra - found in Delhi and Hissar
• 2) Dhaman - found in Karnal, Ambala, Jalandahar, Sialkot, Patiala, Nabha, Faridhkot and Firozpur.
• 3) Khattia - found in Karnal, Ambala, Jalandahar, Sialkot, Patiala, Nabha, Faridhkot and Firozpur.
• 4) Siawan - Jallandhar and Sialkot
• 5) Gade - Amritsar
• 6) Matharu - Ludhiana, Amritsar and Lahore.
• 7) Netal - Hoshiarpur
• 8) Janjua - Rawalpindia
• 9) Tharu - Gurdaspur and Sialkot
• 10)Khokar - Lahore, Rawalpindi and Multan
• 11)Bhatti - Lahore, Rawalpindi and Multan
• 12)Begi Khel - Hazara.'

Are the 12 Tarkhan tribes he lists. I am going to tag the article as well, to get some experts in. Thanks --Sikh-History 20:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the full scanned verison of Rose's book, here's an image of page 313 : [4] I suggest WP: Dispute resolution as it doesn't really need tags and from what I can see 'Bhai roop chand' has not been removed from the article anyway.. Also no need to constantly quote W:This and WP:That..take it to dispute resolution, I would be very interested to here the result.. and a very small portion of the article on http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk is referenced from 'neutral historians' and I do not believe what you want to add is referenced, some of the page is in a language I can not understand, again this makes it difficult for it to be included as a reference. Khokhar (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ps. removing WP:SYNTH tag as it's irrelevant because almost everything is referenced exactly and unless you can show using 'neutral' and acceptable sources why you believe the article is WP:NPOV that tag will also be removed as it takes everything from sources..Khokhar (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What has Sir Denzil Ibbeston got to do with Roses book? Panjab Castes and Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province are two separate books. Get Sir Denzil Ibbeston book, not Rose. As I suspected I don't think you have Sir Denzil Ibbestons book.

• "Neutral Historian"?. It is not for you to make the judgement as to who is "Neutral" or not. Wikipedia is about presenting facts.
• Also the fact you have left out Arains and Churahs out of Khokhars is WP:SYNTH, despite sources such as this.

I'll give you an opportunity to add these sources before I escalate it with admins. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fisrtly Wikipaedia is about presenting, 'correctly sourced' information as much as 'facts', information from unreliable sources can not, in principle, be considered facts.. and the glossary of the tibes and 'castes of the punjab'... is also by Ibbetson... anyway if it was a misunderstanding; then I have nothing gainst adding 'Tarkhan' based on that reference also If yo read again (a bit further on in the Castes of Punjab and NWFP by H.A Rose) you'll notice that the 'chura' element is due to one 'incident' and no other historian has ever included them in fact all historians mention rajput, Most jat, some Tarkhan and maybe arain, but none other have mentioned 'Churah' (and I have read through quite a few, most are linked within the article such as j.m wikeley page 109 [5] or Nijjar's origin of the jats, here khokhars are mentioned on various pages such as page 115, [6], even a google search by typing Khokhar and Churah will bring you no hits [7].. ) hence why the latter and probably 'Arain' also is too insignificant to be included, as for the Sikh-heritage website, well it's clearly not up to the npov standard .. look at all the other sources used in this article or any other for that matter... anyway, like I said, if you really want to include 'nationalistic/religious websites' which are basically websites and most of their work is not referenced, and don't agree with my order of the article (such as the origin section which is pretty much the same as the order used in H.A Rose's book) or still insist on including the material mentioned then try WP:Dispute Resolution also can you let me know what exactly does not meet WP:NPOV in this article??. Khokhar (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ps. is there any Administrator left who you haven't spoken too? Khokhar (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you have elected to include Bhai Roop Chand with a another source, so the www.sikh-heritage site is no longer an issue. There are still elements of WP:SYNTH:

• Whether Arains are insignificant or not, or Churahs are mentioned once, it does not matter. Our duty as editors is to state what the authors have stated. Rose mentions Khokhars being in "Rajputs, Jats, Arains and Churahs" (Churahs are also known as Ravidasia, Mazbhi, Dalits, Harijans etc). Leave it at that. Let the reader make up his her mind. Otherwise it is WP:SYNTH.
• Takhans is an interesting one and is a classic intermingled tribe around a profession. They also have warrior traits vis a vis the Ramgarhia Sardars etc. Ibbetson in Panjab Castes lists Khokhar as a Tarkhan tribe too (infact one of their 12 great tribes), so that is worth including. Maybe there are more warrior Khokhar elements amongst Ramgarhia's too, something I have not explored.

I will leave it to you to include Arains, Churahs and Tarkhans in this. Incidently if you are interested in Bhai Roop Chands Khokhar Lineage, you may wish to include their village as well (it is a place of pilgrimage for Sikh, Hindu and Muslim in Panjab), and explore the Bagrian (their descendents), history. Regards

PS. Whether I contact one admin or all, is my perogative, and whether it is you, or Information-Line assuming bad faith and making disruptive edits, I will not hesitate to try and remedy the matter.--Sikh-History 08:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding including a non-existant minority into this article such as 'Churah', without going into detail as to why logically it shouldn't be included (which H.A Rose's account, itself, does a good job of explaining) I'll just quote a section from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

“ Undue weight

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

”

If you still have an issue with what's been discussed then you'll need to discuss it with an administrator, I have already agreed to Tarkhan being included and all the other major issues have been discussed so I see no reason for the tags either, I will be removing them. Khokhar (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No that is WP:SYNTH, what you are doing. Rose clearly states Khokhars are Rajput, Jat, Arain and Churah. It is not for you or anyone else to analyse numbers.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

You are analysing what an author has written. Rose directly supports that. Please add it. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, User:Sikh-history, and hello, Khokhar. I came here in response to your request for a third opinion. I am having trouble determining the crux of your disagreement, but let me reiterate what is happening and please correct me if I am wrong. It seems that user S-H has some referenced statements about the ancestry of the Khokhar people in the Punjab. User Khokhar disputes that the statements are from sources that can be legitimately cited on WP, and therefore does not want these statements included. In addition to that, User Khokhar claims that user S-H is making original claims and attributing those to legitimate source materials.

One solution to this dispute might be for User S-H to list (or relist) the sources he would like to cite. I would then ask if User Khokhar finds any of those sources to be legitimate for citing. If he does, then I would ask that if User S-H can edit every idea that is important using only those sources, and if he can, I would ask him to propose some changes here on the talk board. I would read those proposals, then read the original source material, and I would determine whether that the proposals are original research by trying to match the text of the proposal with the text of the source, which I would expect to match closely in intent.

At that point, I would hope that all of us would agree that the proposals would not be ineligible for article entry due to NPOV or COI or SYNTH problems. Do either or both of you see this as a likely route to dispute resolution? If not, then say why not, and be concise in making a counter-proposal. Blue Rasberry 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bluerasberry and thank you for nominating for the third opinion. I think your proposal is well thought out and I would be happy to try to work it this way.Khokhar (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Give a me a couple of days as I am on holiday at the moment and I will add the ones I think should be included. Thanks --Sikh-History 11:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources to be included

Ok my inclusions I would like to see. The intro only lists Rajputs and Jats as Khokhar. This is clearly not the case, as there are Arain, Nai, Churah and Tarkhan Khokhars. The sources are:

1. Sir Denzil Ibbetson. Panjab Castes - page 313 ISBN 81-7536-290-1- Lists a table with numbers and also where these tribes are amongst Tarkhans

• 1) Jhangra - found in Delhi and Hissar 9,518
• 2) Dhaman - found in Karnal, Ambala, Jalandahar, Sialkot, Patiala, Nabha, Faridhkot and Firozpur. 71519
• 3) Khatti - found in Karnal, Ambala, Jalandahar, Sialkot, Patiala, Nabha, Faridhkot and Firozpur. 1933
• 4) Siawan - Jallandhar and Sialkot 1933
• 5) Gade - Amritsar 2209
• 6) Matharu - Ludhiana, Amritsar and Lahore. 6971
• 7) Netal - Hoshiarpur 2764
• 8) Janjua - Rawalpindia 12576
• 9) Tharu - Gurdaspur and Sialkot 2822
• 10)Khokhar - Lahore, Rawalpindi and Multan 27534
• 11)Bhatti - Lahore, Rawalpindi and Multan 18837
• 12)Begi Khel - Hazara.'21212

From this one can clearly see Khokhar is a Tarkhan tribe. They should be included.

1. On page 539 A Glossary of The Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province -compiled by HA Rose (in 3 Vols, bound in 2) ISBN 81-7536-152-2 (set), it clearly states at the top - Khokhar a tribe, found among Jats, Rajputs, Arains (in footnote it states Churahs and Nais maybe added), and Churahs.. Therefore, these other tribes should be added. On page 549 there is an interesting story (if a little far fetched) of the origins of Churah Khokhars.

Thanks--Sikh-History 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that the first line of the wiki article introduction (as it is now) says that Khokhar are of Rajput and Jat lineage. I see that the information User S-H is citing in the Ibbetson book says that Khokhar people are a type of Tarkhan tribe. I see that the information User S-H is citing in the book authored by Rose says that Khokhar are a tribe that has some relationship with Jats, Rajputs, Arains, Churahs, and Nais, and also that book has a story about Churah Khokhars which actually calls them "Churah Khokhars".

My local library has books with those titles and by those authors, but not the versions that match the ISBN User S-H is providing. Assuming that the content is the same - and it should be, since these were originally published more than 100 years ago - I should be able to find relevant entries if User S-H can give location information like the chapter, some table number, or section heading, and I would expect to be able to go to the library and verify that that the information you have posted above came from these books within 1-2 days. If I cannot find this information in these books, then I probably can request copies with those ISBNs, but that will take about 2 weeks.

User Khokhar, my initial impression is that these are scholarly reports contemporary with census data collection of the late 1800s, and whether or not they tell the entire story they should at least be legitimate sources for this information, assuming it appears in these books as User S-H says. Would you agree, User Khokhar?

User S-H, could you state exactly what information you intend to present from this source? Of course I will read all of this within the context of the few pages around these items in those books, but I am still a bit confused. Are you wanting to say something like Khokhar are of Rajput, Jat, xxx, xxx, and xxx lineage? If so, the connection between Khokhars and Tarkhans and Khokhars and Jats, Rajputs, Arains, Churahs, and Nais is not completely obvious based only on what you have thus far stated. Knowing this will help me understand what I am supposed to look for on those pages I am checking, and if the context of these statements indicates something beyond what you have directly quoted, I want to be able to look for this.

Any other concerns from either of you, up to this point? Blue Rasberry 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes please check, you will find them, or get an admin to check (they have more tools).

I just want the first line to state that this tribe/surname/gotra, is found amongst many castes.

Note also that the ISBN for a single volume of Roses book is different for both volumes. For Ibbestons book see this link. Here is a link to Roses book.

I really do not want to go into it in detail here, but in a nutshell Rajput Etymology is very complex. It is not as straight forward as people think. That is why we must mention all the associated "caste" groups. For example, a Rajput falls on hard times and takes up say the plough, he could possibly intermingle with Jats, Kamboh, or many other argricultural tribes, and thus lose the "Rajput" status. Even marrying a so called "lower" caste woman would mean they no longer are known as Rajput. This is very simplistic but the idea is to reflect the diversity amongst whom the name Khokhar is found. Thanks--Sikh-History 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No one here is saying that South Asian caste naming systems are straightforward, so there is no need to convince anyone of their complexity. In the link you gave to Rose's book, I am not seeing the information you describe on page 539, which starts with "40 days shut up in a hut." Page 549 is not part of the preview, but by the context of the pages before and after that one, it seems unlikely that the focus of page 549 is ancestry. Is the edition in your link the version in which you referenced page numbers?

Also, I still am faced with the prospect of trying to find the information you are citing in a physical book at my library that does not match the ISBN you are using. Can you describe the section heading, chapter, or other information to help me approximate the location of these passages if they are not exactly on the pages you are naming? Blue Rasberry 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Which volume are you looking at in Roses book? Also, the books I think were purchased in India, hence the ISBN numbers are different possibly? Thanks--Sikh-History 13:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the "Panjab Castes" book. Here is Roses book. It depends on how many volumes you have. Thanks --Sikh-History 13:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Punjab Castes book and here is the Tribes and Castes book I will be checking. ISBNs should be universal, but these versions were published in 1970 and have different numbering. If I cannot verify what you are saying in these, then I will need more time to wait for my library to get the editions you have. Blue Rasberry 15:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi agian, firstly I will just like to say that as Bluerasberry mentioned the caste system in south Asia is quite complicated and invariably sunbjective hence it would not be productive to focus on who constitutes Rajput and who doesn't, also it needs to be made clear that the overwhelming majority of Khokhars live in Pakistan and are Muslim and this again negates the caste matter further as it is less acceptable to discriminate on caste status for Muslims, however it does still happen, though not on the same level as in the past. In any case all this is neither here nor there.

Regarding the requested changes, firstly I can confirm I have a scanned copy of Rose's complete book and it can be found here [8], the 'Punjab Castes' book is not available to me however. Also Bluerasberry asked:

":User Khokhar, my initial impression is that these are scholarly reports contemporary with census data collection of the late 1800s, and whether or not they tell the entire story they should at least be legitimate sources for this information, assuming it appears in these books as User S-H says. Would you agree, User Khokhar?"

I do not disagree with the scholary sources such as Rose's book or the 'Punjab castes' by Ibbetson only, as these seem to be the only sources used in this discussion I am at liberty to agree to their disclosures, In fact once the 'Punjab castes' book has been varified I am in agreement to adding the information it contains, the only matter I do not agree with out of all those mentioned is regarding the 'Churahs' or as User SH put it:

" On page 549 there is an interesting story (if a little far fetched) of the origins of Churah Khokhars."

This is the only scholary source I have seen that makes reference to the Churahs and this was based on the incident described above, I have included many other well known scholars and historians who have commented on the Khokhars in the article, the Khokars are a very large clan and are very well documented with many historical referneces, but none of the other scholars mention 'churahs' while the other clan 'sections' seem to be well documented and easily identifiable the former seems to be based, as noted, on a single incident which Rose himself documents and includes as his source for the 'Churah' element. This is why I do not see why a single family, which is barely referenced should be included as a major section of one of the largest clans in south asia, second only to the Bhattis in the Punjab. Khokhar (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

K.Khokhar, with all due respect is we start saying one academic source is better than another that would be WP:SYNTH possibly undue weight, what we can do is say, X author states Khokhar are this, and X author states Khkokhar are this. That way the reader makes his mind up. PS I could have said most of the stories surrounding Khokhars were a little far fetched (as well as 99%) of Rajput tribes (born from sun, moon etc) Thanks --Sikh-History 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the scans of the pages in question. I feel that these pages are as User S-H described them, and I give my endorsement for integrating this information into the article and citing it to these sources. For what the sources are, government-sponsored commentary on government-sponsored census data from 1883, they seem to me to give NPOV information about the state of society in that area at that time, and I hope we are still together on this. Say something if there is a problem with the legitimacy of this account, otherwise that issue is settled.

There are hundreds of ways that we can make this work to everyone's satisfaction and we only have to find one of those ways. User S-H, could I ask that you make whatever relevant proposals you like to the article, then revert it while we talk about your proposed changes? This will give us a way to see what changes you want with the text as it is now.

User Khokhar seems to be saying that some elements of the Khokhar clan have more legacy than others. I have heard of Jaats and Rajputs, and there are already good wiki articles on Arains and Tarkhans, but the Chura article is a stub and if there is anything on here about the Nai as a people in Punjab, I am not seeing that. I am in agreement with User Khokhar that topics with more background must have more prominence, but without seeing what User S-H proposes, I cannot say the article would be compromised by adding more information. I hear that User Khokhar is worried about lack of other sources, but one source is enough for saying something, and we still have left to decide what that something will be. I am saying this to try to acknowledge User Khokhar's concern, but instead of talking about generalities, let's see an actual proposal and be constructive with criticism about that.

User S-H? Can you please show something? Blue Rasberry 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blue Rasberry, Chura, are known as the sweeper caste and are known as Harijan, Dalit or Mazabhi amongst Sikhs (which are a warrior caste). Nai are known as the barber caste. There are extensive articles, in Roses book and Ibbetsons book about them. I can easily create an article on Nai. I think the intro should read that this surname exists amongst these other castes. i.e. Nai, Tarkhan, Jat, Churah, Arain and Rajput. I think searches will reveal that warrior personalities who are Khokhar exist also amongst Mazabhi too. I think Khokhar is blocked at the moment so it maybe a while before he replies. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

According to wiki, Nai/Chura or Tarkhan are Sikh; who are themselves an extremely small minority of Khokhars, so I don't believe they should be given the prominence suggested above as it would be misleading and would not adhere to either demographic prominence (as you'd expect in such an article) or scholary/historical representaion specially as there are no recent sources to support this unlike the Rajput or Jat Khokhars; who are widely recognised and a simple internet search would bring you numerous personality hits. I'll also clarify that Khokhar is not a surname but a caste, so many people will not include this in their name or will simply use a title such as Malik, Raja, Rana, Chaudhry etc. Taking into consideration Blue Rasberry's views and concerns, I suggest that the former are moved to a section further down so as to say something like 'A small proportion of Khokhars may also be found among the Nai, Chura Tarkhan castes in India', perhaps something like this:

"The Khokhar (Hindi: खोखर, Urdu: کھوکھر) or Khokar (Hindi: खोकर, Urdu: کھوکر) are a people of Pakistan and India, they are the gotra of Rajput,[1][2][3] and Jat/Jaat and Arain.[citation needed] Many Muslim Khokhars, commonly known as Qutb Shahi Khokhars, also claim ancestry from Qutb Shah,[4] who is said to have come from Ghazni with Mahmud of Ghazna. In Pakistan they are predominately Muslim with a Christian minority and are one of the largest Rajput clans in Punjab,[1][6] they are also commonly found in Azad Kashmir and the Hazara Division of the North-West Frontier Province. In India, where they are predominately Hindu or Sikh, they are mainly found in the states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. A small proportion of Sikh Khokhars may also be found among the Nai, Chura Tarkhan castes in India."

Khokhar (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Split

Just to note that as suggested by a contributor here the section on Qutb Shah has been duplicated into a separate article on the individual. Since editors of this article are likely to be familiar with the subject, I hope you'll be able to help determine which information should be abbreviated here now that there is a separate article (again) and which should be summarized at that separate article as more relevant here. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The book Origins and history of Jats and other allied nomadic tribes of India: 900 B.C. - 1947 A.D. (2007) by B.S. Nijjar is an unreliable and misleading work which should not be used in the Wikipedia

I notice that in edits here and on quite a number of Wikipedia articles relating to Indian, Scythian (Saka) and related history, references are being made to B. S. Nijjars' book (see the title above). Unfortunately, I do not have a copy to hand so can only judge it on the pages I am able to access through Google Books, but even on these few pages I find so many outright mistakes, unsupported claims and outdated positions that the whole book must be considered an unreliable source for the history of this period. Here are just a few examples:

1. On p. 244, Nijjar claims the Kushans are "thought to have been of Yueh-chih stock with a strong admixture of Hephthalits, Saka and Tocharian." He makes no mention at all of who thinks this, or on what grounds. The truth is no one knows who the Kushans really were - there are many theories and little agreement in scholarly circles.

2. On p. 245, he makes the "Yueh-chih (Pinyin yuezhi) a branch of the Kushans, also called Indo-Scyth . . ." Again, he gives no reference or evidence for this amazing statement.

3. On p. 247, there are several errors: first Nijjar claims that the Kushan dynasty is descended from the Yuezhi, contradicting his earlier statements. While this may well be so, it is a contested point and, as usual, there is no proof or references given.

4. On the same page he repeats the long-standing but now discredited notion that Kanishka is connected with the advent of the Saka era of 78 CE. Most scholars now accept Falk's well-reasoned and well-supported argument for Kanishka's era starting c. 127 CE.

5. Again on page 247 he states that Kanishka's empire stretched "from Khotan in the north . . ." Now, a Kushan army did invade the Tarim Basin in 90 CE, but it was soon forced to retreat by the famous Chinese General Ban Chao. Later, in the teens of the second century, Kushan troops are said to have placed a Kashgari hostage prince, Chenpan, on the throne of Kashgar, but not long after this Chenpan came under control of the Chinese. We have no definite historical or archaeological evidence that the Kushans ever controlled Khotan and, even if they did, it must have been for a very brief period.

6. And again, on the same p. 247, Nijjar states: "In outlook, Kanishka was full-fledged Indian . . ." This is pure speculation and demonstrably very unlikely. Kanishka's two longest and most important inscriptions are from northern Afghanistan in the Bactrian language (which is more closely related to Persian than Sanskrit or Prakrits) and, although one of his rarer coins has a Buddha on it, most of his coins feature Iranian deities. So, on what grounds does Nijjar claim that "Kanishka was full-fledged Indian"?

7. Nijjar has a chapter (No. 7) headed "The Kushans (Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans) in which he makes a whole series of completely unsupported and unorthodox claims (such as that the Ta Yuan or Dayuan were Tokharians on p. 245). Then, under the sub-heading, "THE EMPEROR KUJULA KADAPHASES", he starts off: "The Yueh-chih succeeded by his son Vima, after whom came Kanishka . . . " WE already have three errors here: the name is usually written Kujula Kadphises, and it is not at all certain that he was a Yueh-chih (Yuezhi), and it has been known for some years now from the Rabatak inscription that, while he did have a son named Vima Tak(tu), this Vima had a son known as Vima Kadphises who, in turn, was the father of Kanishka. So Kanishka was Kujula Kadphises' grandson, not his son as Nijjar claims.

8. Nijjar then goes on making a series of similar mistakes (plus numerous grammatical and spelling errors) - often showing his total ignorance of modern scholarship - I can't even begin to list them all here. I should mention though that, on p. 252, he makes a totally unsupported claim the Kushans were "of Saka stock" - a very contentious and unprovable claim. Indeed, if they were originally Yuezhi (as he earlier claimed), it is most unlikely that they were Sakas for the Chinese histories record that when the Yuezhi moved into the Ili region they defeated the Sakas there and they clearly represent them as two quite different peoples.

9. And so he goes on, making uncertain claims one after another until he reaches the end of his chapter, on page 259, without once saying why he believes that the Kushans were "Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans", as stated in the title of the chapter! And his next chapter (Chapter 8) is headed "The Huns (Ancestors of Jat, Ahirs, Rajputs, Baloches, and Pathans)" which, one can only assume in the end, would be similarly inconclusive and full of unsupported claims.

It is for these reasons (and others far too numerous to include here) that I maintain that B. S. Nijjar's book is a seriously flawed and sloppy work, full of errors and unsupported claims. Moreover, Nijjar is clearly unaware of recent scholarship relating to the issues he so confidently presents to the reader as facts.

The book, as a result, is a very unreliable and misleading source for the history of the period and, so, references should not be made to it in the Wikipedia.

I will, therefore, start removing quotes from it, and references to it, wherever I come across them in the Wikipedia and refer people to this note for my justification. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)