Talk:Janjua

RSS/Shiv Sena agenda in this article.

A number of comments in this section are attacks, are offensive, or are otherwise just generally unacceptable. None of them help improve the article, because none of them cite reliable sources. If anyone wants to actually improve the article, please start a new section and provide the sources you believe should be used and what you think the article should say; you may want to read WP:RS first. However, this page does not exist for general discussions on the topic, for soapboxing or as an internet discussion forum. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing legitimate citations and the term "Rajput" from the article. I sense a Hindhu extremist element in here. Being a Janjua from Chakwal, I know that we are nothing but Rajputs, and I have never seen a Janjua claiming to be a Jatt or something else. And I am talking about the genuine Janjuas, and not "Nais" who settle in cities and adopt different Surnames and castes. Rajput is a tribe, and means "sons of kings", it has nothing to do with "warriors who fight for Hindhuism". British have described Janjuas as "doubtless pure Rajputs", hence I don't need biased Hindhu editors on Shiv Sena pay-roll to tell me otherwise. This whole attitude is converting Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a hate filled forum. Its because of such people that Wikipedia has lost all its credibility. Even though i am not a janjua but i have a passionate interest in tribes of pakistan i would like to ask you have you travelled to any other part where janjuas live like in gujrat gujranwala lahore? you will find many janjuas who do not claim to be rajputs. this article is written based on personal theories and has little historical proof to back up its claim. i am not the person who has edited this btw. what we have in this article is a fancy and exagerated history of janjuas without taking into consideration how tribal communites have evolved and devolved in pakistan. For example the ghummans are a very well known Jatt tribe that were descended from janjuas but according to your own researchers from chakwal/jhelum ghumman can only be a rajput when this is not the case. Also Raniyals are proud Jatt community in azad kashmir yet because some raniyals lay claim to being rajputs the Jatt Raniyals are not accpeted as being descended from janjuas either. I know Ratials who are descended from the highest rajputs 'Katoch' yet they say they are stricly Jatts. question is what is a rajput? there are no rajas or sons of rajas today. rajput was a social grade given to those who fight for hinduatva and consisted of many tribes that were grouped together and labled as rajputs. One tribe in one district claims to be rajput yet the same people from the same tribe in another district say they are Jatt so how can you deny these facts? is it necssary for every janjua to call himself a rajput or else according to you he has no right to call himself a janjua? Is this article stricly for janjuas of chakwal or is it a general article that includes all janjuas? Now to the article were can you provide me proof that Porus was a janjua or anandpal jaypal were janjuas? these are just your fanciful theories to make yourself feel unique that have no historical backing whatsoever. I would like to see the history of the tribes of pakistan written in a true manner rather than just copying pasting what we think will look fanciful for ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.86.49 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC) First of all, I have never heard about "Janjuas" who hail from places like Gujranwala and Lahore. If someone claims that, then that should be verified. I assume you are from India, and don't know anything about Punjabi customs, and the practice by low caste people to adopt surnames of famous tribes, like for instance, almost everyone in Punjab claims to be a Bhatti Rajput, just like Black nationalists in America claim to be the descendants of Zulu tribe, and Romani gypsies claim to be the descendants of Rajputs. If your theories are to be accepted as facts, then Bhatti tribe is actually a caste lower than jatts, and Chauhans are Gujjars, as a lot of people from Sialkot, Gujranwala will tell you. Chauhan is a Gujjar surname in many areas of Punjab, so can we safely say that Chauhans are actually Gujjars then? Will a descendant of Chauhan kings from Rajasthan ever accept that? We have a family tree, that links us straight to 11th century ancestor of all Janjuas, who is known as Raja Mal. I have seen people from places like Gujrat claiming to be Janjuas, but they lack any form of a family tree or something. Janjuas of Jhelum, chakwal, Rawalpindi etc, are completely aware of their family trees. Any true Janjua will know if he is a descendant of Jodh Khan(like myself), Kala Khan(the janjuas of Matore), Khakha etc. If you can find some Janjua from Gujranwala or Lahore, who can tell you his lineage from one of the sons of Raja Mal Khan, please kindly let me know. I wish you all the luck on that. And If some Jatt tribe claims to be Janjua, then that probably means that their Janjua ancestors started marrying into other castes and lost their social class, and became Jatts, though I am sceptical about that. Then again, find me some Jatt Janjua from the original Janjua homeland of Potwar Plateau, and I'll accept the theories that you are making. Thirdly there are sons of Rajas today, and a lot of people can prove that by showing you their family trees with names of kings or cheifs written on them; it has been a Rajput custom to record their full lineages. Find me a Gujjar or Jatt tribe that have the names of their ancestors recorded in the form of family trees(ancestors before the age of Ranjit Singh). I never talked about Raja Porus being my ancestor or something, but as far as Jaypal is concerned, I am not well aware of that, but many historians, like Alexander Cunningham theorised that link. Lastly, Indians need to put their Biases aside, and treat Wikipedia like an encyclopedia instead of a Shiv Sena forum. Find me one historical primary source, that describes Janjua as a "Jatt" tribe, which someone is trying too hard to prove. And secondly I am not trying to be unique or something, that is what you think. You have a whole array of literature in this article that shows the unique standing of the Janjuas, as narrated by british historians, who tend to unbiased than most others because they are not bound to any local religion. I don't need a Hindhu extremist to tell me otherwise. It is this attitude of Wikipedia pseudo-historians, that WIkipedia is held in low esteem throughout the academia. History should be treated as history, and not distorted for political or social reasons, like a lot of Right Wing parties do. I will admit that I am not a historian myself, but people disregarding all the citations in this article are the ones who prompted me to discuss it here. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Janjuas and Awans are both listed as Jatts in the Gujranwala District Gazatteer which is written by the british and both tribes were few thousands in number. Get the book and read it you will find this info under the tribal listing section. You say british historians were not biased which is correct yet 'they' say that rajput and jatts of Punjab are of the same stock where rajput is just a social grade. Denzil ibbetson states in 'Punjab Castes' that the true rajputs became landlord farmers and hence were termed Jatts he also states that beyond the jhelum river everyone calls themselves 'raja' or rajput. Why would the Awans jhelum area say they are arabs and kutab shahis yet in gujranwala district they record themselves as Jatts. answer is simple the Awans were a jatt tribe and on accepting Islam at hands of qutub shah began to call themselves 'awan'. Your talking about low castes calling themselves bhatti and what are low castes? they belong to the dravidian family and the rajputs according to denzil ibbetson are not free from 'dravidian' mixture something he never ascribed to the Jatts or Gujjars Punjab but ascribed to them a forign origin. Yes sure your tribe has a family tree as rajputs had brahmans that were record keepers and Jatts had mirasis who were record keepers. Many Jatt family trees can be found in the book 'tribes and castes of punjab and nwfp province' but what i find odd is that janjuas have no recollection as to when they accepted islam and what the meaning of the word 'janjua' is. According to the Jhelum district gazatteer janjuas are a branch of the 'rathore' rajputs and same british writers state that the tract which is occupied by the janjuas was not their original home and the area around tilla jhelum was home to the Jatt tribe in the same book it says that the janjuas were not rulers over jatts through strength or power but through mutual respect and harmony. Now to the Gujjars who are mentioned in the 36 tribes of rajputs as 'gurjar' and also is mentioned a tribe called 'Jit' which according to james todd is no other than the Jat tribe but we have no mention of the janjuas in this list. What you seem to be forgetting is these jatts and gujjars were some of the earliers followers of Islam. In the chachnama history of mohd bin qasims invasion of sindh the jats were the first to join the arabs to fight raja daher and first to accept Islam and in islamic faith caste jaat has no place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.56.181 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I certainly have removed some of the content to which you appear to be referring. However, I am not even of a religious bent, let alone an extremist politico-religious one. Rather than write reams of text containing your opinions etc, what you need to do is produce some reliable sources. To the best of my recollection, this is the only reason why I removed content. If you continue to assume bad faith by making wild accusations against fellow contributors then you could find yourself being blocked from editing. This article is one that is subject to general sanctions, as per the notice at the top of this page: your comments are unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC) You clearly did not get my point. You don't become a Janjua, or an Awan just by saying that you are one. Did these Awans and Janjuas in Gujranwala present a family tree to the British authorities to prove their original genealogy? I have seen Jatts from Sialkot claiming to be Rajas in Rawalpindi,does that mean they are one? My old servant, a Kumhar by caste, had written "Gakkhar Rajput" in a government census, he even admits that he is not one. And you are just citing one author, yet this page is full of different citations. As far as Jatts are concerned, Jatts have very little influence in Pothwar region of northern Punjab. Majority of land in these areas is owned by Janjuas and Gakkhars,where as, Jatts are described as "tenants" by the British. They do enjoy a high social standing in the Punjab plains, but they have no such importance in Pothwar. Awans, Gakkhars and Janjuas are always described as the ruling tribes of Pothwar. As far as Awans are concerned, you cited them claiming to be Jatts in Gujranwala, but what about places like Abottabad and Kashmir? They even call themselves "qutb shahi Awan" over there. Thirdly, about the word Janjua not meaning anything; does the word Gakkhar mean anything? Does the name Cheema mean anything? Then you claimed that Jatts and Gujjars are described as foreigners, I don't get your point, is it wrong to have dravidian blood in your veins? Does having a supposedly "foreigner" origin make you better? Recent genetic studies on Jatts have shown a similarity with the Gypsies of eastern europe and Gujjars have been labelled as other backwards castes in modern day India, what does that prove then? Besides, Janjuas had- and still have, the practice of marrying into Janjuas, and other Rajas like Gakkhars etc only; can you say the same for Gujjars and Jatts? Denzil Ibettson claims that Janjuas might be foreigner to Pothwar, but what about Cunningham; he actually linked Janjuas to the Hindu Shahi emperors and called them "Aryans". You revealed your ulterior racist/political beliefs just by saying that. But I am not surprised, people of subcontinent have a tendency to politicize history. I have seen a lot of Jatt nationalists claiming renowned Rajput clans, such as Tiwanas and Khars as Jatts, which has something to do with ulterior political motives. Jatts have a very vague place in history before the Mughal era, and they have been described as Mercenaries, and not as "chiefs" who joined Muhammad Bin Qasim. Jatt nationalists claim Rajput tribes as Jatts to "feel unique about themselves", as you put it, just like black nationalists claiming ancient Egyptian kingdoms to be "black". My point being, you can't become a Janjua by just saying that you are a Janjua. I can't say the same for the Jatts and Gujjars, but to be a Janjua, you need to have a proper family history and not just claims. There is a difference between a genuine Janjua and a Nai(see Rehman Malik for more details). Janjuas and Awans are both listed as Jatts in the Gujranwala District Gazatteer which is written by the british and both tribes were few thousands in number. Get the book and read it you will find this info under the tribal listing section. You say british historians were not biased which is correct yet 'they' say that rajput and jatts of Punjab are of the same stock where rajput is just a social grade. Denzil ibbetson states in 'Punjab Castes' that the true rajputs became landlord farmers and hence were termed Jatts he also states that beyond the jhelum river everyone calls themselves 'raja' or rajput. Why would the Awans jhelum area say they are arabs and kutab shahis yet in gujranwala district they record themselves as Jatts. answer is simple the Awans were a jatt tribe and on accepting Islam at hands of qutub shah began to call themselves 'awan'. Your talking about low castes calling themselves bhatti and what are low castes? they belong to the dravidian family and the rajputs according to denzil ibbetson are not free from 'dravidian' mixture something he never ascribed to the Jatts or Gujjars Punjab but ascribed to them a forign origin. Yes sure your tribe has a family tree as rajputs had brahmans that were record keepers and Jatts had mirasis who were record keepers. Many Jatt family trees can be found in the book 'tribes and castes of punjab and nwfp province' but what i find odd is that janjuas have no recollection as to when they accepted islam and what the meaning of the word 'janjua' is. According to the Jhelum district gazatteer janjuas are a branch of the 'rathore' rajputs and same british writers state that the tract which is occupied by the janjuas was not their original home and the area around tilla jhelum was home to the Jatt tribe in the same book it says that the janjuas were not rulers over jatts through strength or power but through mutual respect and harmony. Now to the Gujjars who are mentioned in the 36 tribes of rajputs as 'gurjar' and also is mentioned a tribe called 'Jit' which according to james todd is no other than the Jat tribe but we have no mention of the janjuas in this list. What you seem to be forgetting is these jatts and gujjars were some of the earliers followers of Islam. In the chachnama history of mohd bin qasims invasion of sindh the jats were the first to join the arabs to fight raja daher and first to accept Islam and in islamic faith caste jaat has no place.--182.177.35.155 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) I am not even reading the above wall of text in full. You need to provide some proper sources, and preferably not ones written ages ago. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC) To be Rajput both parents have to be Rajput.To be white both parents have to be white.In the Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan Co. James Tod has mentioned Janjuas as Rajput, in second volume in the Annals of Bhattis.There are Hindu Tanolis.They are Chander vanshi.This was on a Hindu Rajput matrimonial Website. In royal families social mobility is downward.Rajput family members were loosing their Royal status and adopting non-royal occupations and falling into those castes.Some were marrying non-rajput women and children belonged to the mother,s caste.In the Annals of Bhattis Tod says that Bhattis passed their royal blood in many other castes through marriage. Bhatti is short for Bhataraka.Bhataraka is a Sanskrit word which means lord or warrior.Bhataraka was used by Hindu kings as a title.One of Bhatti,s seven brothers was called Janj.Tod hypothesised that Janjuas may be descended from Bhatti,s brother.This mesns janj or janju is a Hindu name. In the Quran it says that god has made people into tribes so that they may recognise each other.Rajput, Janjua and Bhatti etc. are identities.If Rajputs or Janjuas stop calling themselves rajput and janjuas then they will loose their identities.This is against Islam.In Islam Pathans. Baloch, Mughals, Sayeds, Hashmis, Qureshis, Butts and Dars use their tribal Idendtities.No body tells them not to call themselves by these names.They also use titles of Sheikh, pir,Sayed, Khan ,Mirza and malik etc.But, if Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars call themselves by their tribal names or use titles of Raja, Rana, Rai, Rao, Thakur and Chaudhry then some people have problem.Why the double standards.This is hypocracy.These people are two faced mongrels. Some Hindu Rajputs married their daughters to the Mughals.These Hindu women became Empresses of India.They gave birth to Kings and Emperors like Jahangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb.They were not concubines.They were Queens.They did not become muslim.They were allowed to keep their hindu religion.They had their temples in the muslim palaces.Mughals used to celebrate Hindu festivals.Hindus were treated as equal citizens.Hindus did not have to pay jizya.Every Hindu benefitted from these matrimonial alliances.Rajputs were the pillar that was holding the mughal Empire.When Aurangzeb tried to impose jizya, Rajputs rebelled and the Mughal Empire crumbled.tbc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbaz (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Denzil Ibettson also said that jatts in Rawalpindi don't like being called Jatts because of low repute attributed to that name in Pothwar area of Punjab. He also mentioned that anyone in Pothwar, who is not a sayyid, rajput, janjua, gakhar or awan, is known as jatt. As far as dravidian blood is concerned, every race in sub-continent has different levels of dravidian blood in their veins. Even balochis have a bit of dravidian blood in them. And Ibettson described Jatts and Gujjars as either turkic or indo-scythian(who were thought to be non-aryan at that time). In the same book, various derogatory remarks are used for gujjars and jatts, so don't cite Denzil Ibettson to prove any esteemed place of these two tribes. And you just made up that mutual interest and understanding part, that's how Babar described the Janjua chiefdoms. He described them as ruling in a brotherly manner. Todd used the term Gurjara for the Gurjara-pratihara Rajput confederation of Rajasthan, who later became known as Chauhans. He did not certainly list Gujjars as 36 royal clans of rajputs. As for the name Janjua not meaning anything; it is theorized to mean "janamejaya" who was a hero in hindhu mythological epics, but that's just a theory. Theories shouldn't be taken as facts. And caste names are not supposed to mean anything, they are just names lol. Does bugti or afridi mean anything? Does katoch mean anything? And as a final word, I would like to thank other proud Janjua Rajputs defending the identity of their clan. An overwhelming majority of Janjuas are rajputs, and pothwari, and almost all the colonial sources describe them as. so jatt, gujjar and hindhu supremacists should quit their propaganda campaign, and find another hobby. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC) James Tod is not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE HAS BECOME RUBISH

Raja sahib, I have been following this article regularly, I noticed lots of changes has been taking place. I believe tittle should be JANJUA RAJPUT as it has ealier. It seems now admin is not sure about any thing, Raja saab, you have confused every thing since Jatt and Rajput issue you have mixed. I think this article has no more importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.184.108 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We write what reliable sources say. And reliable sources say there are both Rajput and Jatt Janjua. Unless you have sources that clearly show the ones in the article are wrong, we can't remove them (and, even then, we'd probably just put both opinions). Please understand that Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, but on verified info from reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answer, but there is one thing which is called logic and logic says there can't be both at the same time, jatt and Rajput. so in my opinion we should follow the oldest theory as source of information which narrates that Janjua are Rajputs. what you say?

We have a policy of No original research in articles. This means that articles are not written according to what editors think is logical. Articles are written according to what reliable sources say.

For historical facts, we follow mainly the books written by historians. The historians analyze the documents and make conclusions about what they mean. Then we summarize those conclusions. (and books have to be assessed to make sure that they are reliable. Old history books are sometimes outdated, and sometimes they are deprecated by newer books or by books of higher quality). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval's basically said my point, but I'll put it in my own words: the oldest theory is, in fact, the least likely to be true. That doesn't mean we ignore it, it just means that we would never designate that as the "best" theory. More generally, you are correct that they can't be both...but it is also correct that different people have opinions about which is correct. Wikipedia's policy (it's in wP:NPOV) says that when people disagree, our goal is not to try to figure out who is correct. Our job is, in fact, on purpose, to show both sides, taking care to weight the article to match the prevalence of the theories in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims.

Janjua is a Rajput clan, and they are called Rajputs in almost all the historical sources and journalistic articles. The ancestral home of Janjua Rajputs is Salt Range, as described by various historical gazetteers. Jatts were described as tenants of Janjuas by imperial gazetteers. The so called people claiming to "Janjua Jatts" are either descendants of some Janjua individuals who married women from lower castes, or plain "nais" i'e people who claim different castes. If Janjuas can be called Jatts, then I think every other Rajput clan should be called Jatt, as a lot of Jatt clans claim descent from Rajput clans. Unlike the majority of Jatt clans, Rajputs, especially Mian Sahu Rajputs(the term used for first class Rajputs) have a tradition of keeping ancestral records. To be a pure Janjua, one must have their ancestral records. Claims alone do not determine your ethnicity. If someone from Gujranwala or Faisalabad, etc, claims to be a Janjua, he/she should know from which line of Janjua clan that individual is from. For example, a nai would never know if he's a descendant of Jodh Khan, Wir Khan or Kala Khan etc. As far as being a Jatt is concerned, I think getting called a Jatt is the biggest insult, that the real "Mian Sahu" Janjua Rajputs of Rawalpindi division have to suffer. Its not that we have something against Jatts, but "Nais" should never rob a clan's identity. So its my humble request to all the editors with ulterior motives to put aside your biases and rely on historical sources instead of personal biases and political views. An overwhelming majority of historical records, other than a book by H.A.Rose and some Gazetteer from Gujranwala, put Janjua clan as the "only pure Rajputs" of Pothwar plains. I suspect all these edit wars placing Janjuas as Jatts is an attempt by Jatt nationalists' to esteem any place of Jatts. The role of Jatts in the history of Punjab is irrelevant before the rise of Sikhs, hence the Jatt nationalists are trying to claim famous Rajput clans as Jatts. Secondly, Hindhu extremists should also rely upon historical citations instead of blind hatred of a religion or something. They should make a similar edit war against Chauhan Rajput and Punwar Rajput pages, as a few gazetteers describe those clans as Gujjars.

P.S: Use citations from reputable sources instead of personal biases on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the numerous discussions above concerning this point. We have to work within the bounds of our policies. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, why is H.A.Rose used as a chief source, and Denzil Ibettson mysteriously removed. Denzil Ibettson's work was used directly by H.A.Rose. Can anyone answer that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ideally we would use neither because they are very poor, but since Rose followed Ibbetson it is to be assumed that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants". We almost always prefer more modern sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

VALA KATHIAS.

In Saurashtra region, in the Indian state of Gujrat, there is a Rajput tribe called VALA Rajputs.A Vala Rajput married a Kathi woman and the descendants of this Vala Rajput are called Vala Kathis.Vala Kathis belong in the Kathi tribe and inter-marry with the Kathis..They are not considered Rajput.There are other Rajputs who married Kathi women but the children do not use their Rajput father,s tribal name, instead they use their Rajput father,s first name as their surname.This is mentioned in the book called "The Rajputs of Saurashtra", written by Virbhadra Singhji and in the fourth chapter.After so many generations the Vala Kathis have lost their pure Rajput blood and have become full-fledged Kathis.Anyway, to be a Rajput both parents have to be Rajput.

The point is that if there are people who are using Rajput tribal names but they do not call themselves rajput and are not considered rajput then they do not belong in the Rajput articles.They belong in their present castes and in the articles of their present castes.During the British rule in India some members of Non-rajput castes starting using Rajput tribal names in order to get into the British army.What is the reason given by the Janjua Jatts for calling themselves Janjuas?.Rajbaz (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As always, we need reliable sources. The reasons for calling Janjua Jatts as Janjua is because reliable sources do. While we can possibly include other reliable sources that argue against this, we won't remove the other claims. It's not unusual for a WP article to have multiple competing theoriesQwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In the "origin and history of Jatts and other allied nomadic tribes of India", B.S.Nijjar, the author, who is also a jatt, says on page 99 about Jatts of Gujjar Khan,"many of them, borrowing Rajput tribal names, enlist in native army".On the other hand it mentions about two Rajput brothers called Yas and Kals.Yas married in his own rajput caste and his descendants are called Baju Rajputs and his brother Kals married in a Jatt family and his descendants are called Bajwa Rajputs.Both Baju Rajputs and Bajwa Jatts acknowledge their common descent.So far there are two reasons why Rajput tribal names are found in non-Rajput castes.One reason is that Non-Rajputs have borrowed rajput tribal names and the other reason is mixed marriages.Borrowing Rajput tribal names is very common.When non-Rajput people move from rural areas to towns and cities, they usually borrow Rajput and other higher caste tribal names.Whether people have borrowed Rajput tribal names or they are of mixed descent, either way they do not belong in Rajput articles.This is how caste system works, whether somebody likes it or not.It is not up to the European scholars to decide about what caste is or what caste is not. Caste is complicated subject.One has to be in it, in order to know it, to understand it and to appreciate it.Rajbaz (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

From Chronicles of early Janjuas by Hussain Khan Janjua

According to the book Chronicles of early Janjuas by Hussain Khan Janjua , the Janjuas are descendants of a central Asian tribe that once ruled parts of Central Asia and alludes to them being descended from the Juan Juan Referring to the writings of Al-Masudi (born 896-died 956) , Hussain Khan Janjua , connects the name of Jahaj the king of Kandahar to etymologies to Janjua , and mentions Cunningham equating Jahaz to Janjua and the Hindu Shahi.

Book is published by IuniverseIntothefire (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Intothefire (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

iUniverse are a self-publishing house/vanity press. They are not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Tareekh-i-Janjua by Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua

The above book by Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua is provided as a reference several times in this article . Is this a book in English or a translation is unclear .Can the editor who has provided this reference please inform .Would also like to read this book , it is apparently published by Sahiwal Press . Can the editor who put this inform if it is available on the net ?
Moreover immediately after the reference to Porus the article goes on to call the Hindu Shahis , Janjua ? where are the reliable reference or citations for this , have they been deleted ? Intothefire (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought that I had queried that source some time ago. I have grave doubts regarding its reliability even though I've never seen the thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Shahi Connection

This article as well as the article on the Shahi Dynasty asserts an unequivocal descent of the Janjuas from the Shahis . The Shahi article (as it reads today )for instance states "The initial Hindu Shahi dynasty was the House of Kallar, but in AD 964 the rule was assumed from Bhima upon his death by the Janjua emperor Maharajadiraja Jayapala, son of Rai Asatapala Janjua" and the reference provided 92 has two books ?viz "^ Coins of Medieval India, A. Cunningham, London, 1894, pp 56, 62; The Last Two Dynasties of The Sahis, A. Rehman, 1988, Delhi, pp 131, 48, 49, 3001; Chronicles of Early Janjuas Dr H. Khan, 2003 iUniverse, pp 3, 5, 8, 9." . I have seldom seen two citations in one , is this valid ?

There is a good likelihood that the editor who has worked on this angle of Shahi relation to Janjua on the Shahi page may be the same editor who has constructed this angle on this page , please provide the complete quote of what exactly is stated by Cunningham . Has Cunningham stated a fact or his deduction . Since this section of the article on the Shahis , is based on the Janjua page here , I am discussing this here .

There is extensive and scholarly work available on the Shahi's . Although there could be substance in the claim made by the above two books Chronicles of early Janjuas by Hussain Khan Janjua and Tareekh-i-Janjua by Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua h the . At best the connection alluded to with the Shahis can be a line or two, but must not become the basis for a primary claim , presenting an unbalanced theory . Would appreciate a response .Intothefire (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There are three citations, not two - I'm a bit concerned that you cannot even count ;) You really need to run discussions here and at the Shahi article, in part because without diffs your speculation regarding authorship etc is void and your insinuations - "constructed" etc - a little unpleasant. However, you can take it as read that iUniverse is not a reliable publisher anywhere, as I mentioned this to you here only a few days ago. It has also been suggested to you that the Tareekh is unlikely to be reliable (the reasons for that should be obvious to someone who has been around as long as you have).

I'd be interested to know the alternate theories of origin, since by querying the weighting you appear to be suggesting that there is/are some. If something is a fringe theory then we have a way of dealing with that. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)