Talk:Gakhars (Hindu)

No References to Claims

Hello. Interesting page although you have not provided any referances or citations. Please do! Thanks--Peter 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)peterkeyani--Peter 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Peter. This page has absolutely no references or citations. I have read numerous work relating to the Gakhar clan and have yet to find any mention of the clan have any Hindu elements.

1. The article makes such very strong claims regarding the clans conversion from Hinduism and Buddhism to Islam. Can I see the references to prove this please?

2. Also, there is a claim that some Gakhars did not convert and remained Hindu. Yet there is no cited reference or proof of them becoming Hindu? Considering they were champions of Zoroastrainism, they are assumed to have become Hindu upon entry into India. This is erroneous as the Parsi community, staunch Persian Zoroastrians, never converted upon entry to India en masse. I do believe their may be non Muslim elements of the Gakhars residing in India. But to label them all as Hindu, indeed requires proof, a simple citation. They can be of many other Indian faiths, or indeed still Zoroastrains (which is very much probable).

3. There is also a claim that the Gakhar Hindus resided in "Jhelum, Kashmir, and West Punjab (which now falls in the Pakistan Punjab)." But strangely, considering the tribe was heavily recorded by the British researchers and ethnographers as completely Muslim, there has been NO mention of them having been Hindu. Not to say there were no Hindu Gakhars in India at all. But just that they were NOT recorded as living in the above stated regions. I dont see how this claim could have been made without any proof quite frankly.

This query is not countering their existence, just countering the claims made on this page and requesting published proof for these claims please.

I would advise a re write of the claims, either verified with citations, or removed and rewritten to reflect the points above. Wiki policies in this case for citations must be adhered to. --Raja 10:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Supersaiyan|Raja your queries are better answered by anonymous user 24.10.142.95 .

Cheers Intothefire 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Im sure they will. --Raja 13:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Raja

Now to get back to where this all began . My additions of Hindu Gakhars being continously deleted from the Gakhar page and to avoid an edit conflict ...I set up a new page although I think this was patently unfair . All the same here is the exact text of the first post ...perhaps you should have checked it yourself .Lets look at it and then I will elaborate .

"Hindu Gakhars are an ancient clan of India from the Punjab region . Gakhars are found among both Khatris as well as Rajputs . After the Partition of India in 1947 Hindu Gakhars moved from their traditional homes in West Punjab and what is now part of Pakistan to India.

Before the partition of India Hindu Gakhars were settled in the areas of Rawalpindi and Jhelum .

After the arrival of Islam into the subcontinent a predominant section of Gakhars converted to Islam from Hinduism. The Muslim Gakhars in Pakistan are a prominent community in that country ."

Then even this inocious page started to get attacked ....see my post to Siddiqui..for example below . What is the proof you require to this post ....
a)You question that there are any living Hindu Gakhars at all ?
b)You question that Gakhars were ever converted to Islam ?
c)You question that Gakhars were converted from Hinduism to Islam ?

I will provide the responses for the precise question or objections you may have ,provided they pertain to my posts ,which if they dont I do not respond . As to me being a RSS member I could only laugh since I specifically reject their exclusivist worldview.

Having read Farishta ...which is often quoted here ...I could say that much of what he has said is only his- Farishta s imbalanced opinion that often border on abuse . Frankly His obnoxious observations on Gakhars calling them barbarians is only an extension of his own highly prejudiced mind . If you have read both Farishta and Alberuni you would I am sure be able to see the vast difference of these two authors in their observations of Indian culture . I need not subscribe to Farishtas hateful opinions on Gakhars , but according to the rules of wikipedia his opinion is taken for proof ?

Cheers Intothefire 04:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Having understood what you mean regarding this issue not being given space in the original article, I can understand you having another page devoted to the subject. Problem is, you still managed to ensure that the Hindu side were mentioned in the original Gakhars page, thus confusing as to why this was even needed when it states the same info?

The problem is, and I mean this respectfully intothefire, I dont think you read what is written first, then put up your points. I feel this because you have yet to answer the above points, which already ascribe what I am saying. I never said there weren't any Gakhars, but I requested what info you had to suggest that they were Hindus and not any other Indo or Zoroastrian faith? See above again to understand. I dont see why I should re type my points when you can read them above, perfectly clearly. But I have managed to bullet point them by numbers for you to make it easier for you to see them. Answer them and we can either dramatically improve this article, or perhaps see what extra there is here (that isnt already in the Gakhars page already) to warrant a seperate page in the 1st place.

Regarding the Ferishta's opinions of Gakhars, it does warrant mention, but also I would include the alternative point from other historians and also perhaps from the tribe itself (Raja Jehandad Khan's research rebuttal) perhaps? I believe Al beruni to be the better more neutral source though. You have to remember, Ferishta's account is simply word of mouth, many many centuries later than the alleged incident and the ONLY indicator of this tribe's presence in India prior to Ghazni's campaigns.

Regarding Siddiqui, I believe if you weren't so harsh to him (inexperience of wiki language accord I guess...) perhaps you guys could have worked together on this. Citations my man, just citations! :-)--Raja 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Siddiqui

Siddiqui Just as the deliberate obiliteration of the history of Siddiquis from India would be completely unjustified as for example the stellar contribution of the Muhajir Urdu community s contribution in the establishment of Pakistan is being obiliterated... So is the case with the Hindu Gakhars or millions of others who are now living in India but belong to the area which now forms Pakistan.

As a Pakistani , you proclaim your own Indian and Arabic roots , and yet you steadfastly wish to deny the roots of others ?? Why ?

What is a Pakistani surname ? please elucidate . And by that same yardstick standard explain where Siddiqui belong . ?

Are you quite sure that there is not one single Hindu Gakhar left in Pakistan?

I have made a separate page Gakhar Hindus in deference to the existing page that covers Muslim Gakhars of Pakistan ....and now you vandal this ....!

You bandy your siddiqui lineage as if it were a caste , and you edit the lineage of others ?

Where do you belong ? Intothefire 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Gakhar page

A lively debate took place on the Gakhars discussion page ,which would be of interest to anyone visiting this page for information on Gakhar history .
Cheers
Intothefire 16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Intothefire 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For reasons known to themselves some contributors who also regularly post on the Gakhar page have had an objection to acknowledgement or the existance of Hindu Gakhars .

For those Doubting Thomas there is an easy way to clear their doubts please visit [1] the online MTNL telephone directory of Delhi select Individual Residential

and simply type Gakhar .

Cheers
Intothefire 17:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Hindu Gakhars do exist

I do not have any citations regarding Hindu Gakhars but I was known to a Hindu Gakhar family in Indian Punjab. They were very light-skinned, well-educated and spoke fluent Punjabi/Haryanvi. This testimony may not carry any weight as per Wikipedia rules but I would request the other editors not to dismiss the claim of Hindu Gakhars summarily. Sometimes citable information is missing about certain groups. In such circumstances it is better not to express strong affirmative or negative statements about a claim simply because the citable information does not exist. If this is allowed to happen then it is not fair to the certain subaltern narratives which are historically significant but lie buried beneath of a heap of popular, and often ignorant, opinions and propaganda which often find entry into citable sources just as easily as the truthful accounts. While it is not the subject matter of an encyclopedia to be a forum for these suppressed narratives but keep in mind they belong to the groups which still exist in full blood, and they have a rightful voice in objecting to them. Maybe wikipedia's rules about biographies of 'living persons' could be invoked in these cases. Ethnic groups which still exist are nothing but a collection of 'living people' and maximal caution should be exercised when they are described in an encyclopedia, lest anything be written which might be deemed libelous by the members of that group. regards.--Internet Scholar (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Gakhars

Are their Sikh Gakhars? 122.163.204.38 (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

The article seems to be mostly an exposition that could be covered at Gakhars. Sure, the community has two religions and there is a claim (unsourced) that post-partition they even split geographically, but the fact is that 90% of this article is just talking about the Islamic conversion ... and it is using really old primary sources to do so. I am tempted to propose a merger unless someone comes up with decent content and sources before too long. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you read up the discussion on this page and the Gakhar discussion page before acting in haste .Intothefire (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. Now, why does it exist? - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:)

Intothefire (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a meaningful answer. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

|Primary Sources?

Sitush:You put a tag
There are 7 citations , please inform which are primary sources , the closest living person Mostowfi lived about 70 years after the events .

• Muhammad of Ghor lived 1150 – 1206
• Ferishta: lived 1560 1620
• Hamdollah Mostowfi lived 1281–1349

No doubt your wikipedia skills are commendable ,regret you are injuring various articles with your skills , sometimes removing citations , other times causing doubt where none should exist .
Intothefire (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All three. They are far too old and are considered to be primary sources. We need reliable secondary sources. If these issues are notable then they will have been discussed by academics etc in the last few years. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Response 1 from Intothefire

You are wrong.

Please carefully refer Primary sources . It clearly states Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering ::an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

Then look at the dates I have provided above , one author cited is least 70 years later and the other is 300 years later than the incident , nor are the people writing these accounts directly involved or could have been .
Incidently which is the third ? ... you say all three ? I only mentioned 2 here ? Surely you dont mean Muhammad of Ghor , because I cant see him quoted in the article . Intothefire (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No way are those sources reliable. If you doubt this then I suggest that you enquire at WP:RSN but would it not be simpler just to provide more modern sources? - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been having a think about this. Take a look at Lohara dynasty. It relies very heavily on the one early Indian historian who is considered to be reliable(-ish), Kalhana. Nonetheless, the article is sourced mostly to Mark Aurel Stein, whose study of Kalhana's work seems still to be something of a standard reference. Stein both translated Kalhana and provided a substantial commentary, discussing the context and the issues surrounding the early writings. In other words, Kalhana is a primary source and Stein is a secondary source. Does this make any sense? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Response 2 from Intothefire

I really do wish we were working together to improve articles rather than at loggerheads , but then who knows the contrariety may actually lead to improvement .Unfortunately your edits are spanning articles and subjects I have been working on and there is a definitive contradiction here .
Lets take your deletion of a citation from a secondary source in this article
*October 2011 remove Wikeley source: he may be reliable on military affairs of the 1920s etc but as a historian he was at best an amateur & a plagiaris. Whereas on 17 September 2011 you provide an edit on article Kshatriyas and would-be Kshatriyas a book by an advocate ? (not a historian or , a sociologist , anthropologist , scholar published in 1904). If you read the pedestrian invectives in this book on various issues , you may like to seriously reconsider your endorsement of your edit. The remaining citations on that article are even more absurd . My aim here is to question your double standard then , Wekely a millitary man is unacceptable but an an advocate Kumar Cheda Singh Varma is ?? Moreover your opinion on Wekeley ,is it your opinion or the result of a Wikipedia concensus as a legitimate secondary source  ?

Next to the issue of Ferishta and Hamdollah Mostowfi being reliable sources for wikipedia ....well , what would you say to Plutarch and Arrian being used all over Wikipedia ...take the example of article Alexander the Great and see the citations .Yes your opinion on Mark Aurel Stein is valid I have cited him on various occasions .But here the issue is one of consistency over article , which my friend you are missing over and over again .

Cheers Intothefire (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to fix your somewhat idiosyncratic indenting. I hope you do not mind. There is also absolutely no need for all these bolded "X response from Y" statements.

I have never added Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas as a source, nor am I brilliantly happy with it as such (see: Talk:Khatri during the last week). Wikeley is a plagiarist and also not a historian, anthropologist, Indologist etc. He is unreliable. If you disagree then take it to WP:RSN or WT:INB. As for the rest of your comments, please read WP:OSE. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)