Talk:Tanoli

Template:Castewarningtalk

Government

The rulers of Dir originally held the title of Khan but from June 1897 onwards were styled Nawab Khan Bahadur of the Tanoli tribe. The royal status of the rulers was abolished in 1972 at the same time as most other princes of Pakistan.

Tenure	Rulers of Dir
Unknown dates	Gholam Khan Baba
Unknown dates	Zafar Khan
Unknown dates	Qasem Khan
1863–1874	Ghazzan Khan
1875–1886	Rahmat Allah Khan
1886–1890	Mohammad Sharif Khan (1st time)
1890–1895	Mohammad `Omara Khan
1895 - December 1904	Mohammad Sharif Khan (2nd time)
December 1904 - February 1925	Awrangzeb Badshah Khan
February 1925 - 9 November 1960	Mohammad Shah Jahan Khan
9 November 1960 - 28 July 1969	Mohammad Shah Khosru Khan
28 July 1969	State of Dir dissolved

Karlanee (Kerlani)

Karlani Afghan Tribes Genealogy & Family Tree.

• Roadh Bai
• Dilazak
• Mangal
• Kakai
• Torai or Turi
• Tanai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastkhankhel (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Hanee
• Wardak (Verdag)
• Aurakzai (Orakzai)
• Afridi or Apridee
• Khattak
• Khakwani (Khogyani)
• Sheetak
• Bolaaq
• Zadran (Jadran)
• Wazir
• Masid (Mahsud)
• Daur (Dawar)
• Sataryanai
• Gaarai
• Bangash
• Banosee (Banuchi)
• Zazai (Jaji)
• Gorbuz
• Khostwaal
• Atmaankhel (Utmankhail)
• Muqbal

Untitled section

I am really wondering why some people on Tanoli wiki talk page are consistently opposing new research and outrightly rejecting some authentic citations with an intension to be in their own shoes. we need to be broad minded and accept new research.The one Khani100 is consistantly rejecting citations of the books which he even not read or have access to them. I will refer to one such example of "History of Afghans" a translation of Makhzen-e-Afghani of Neamatullah. This book was written by Bernhard Dorn, a history professor, in1836 published at London,and comprises of two volumes. At page-49 of volume 2, it is clearly mentioned that Tanokhel was grandson of Ghilzai who himself is believed to be of Turkic origin which to some extent is in consonance with the claim of Tanolis as some Tanolis claim Turco-Mongol origin. Like Tanolis, Ghilzai are pushtunified to such an extent that they are now considered an integral part of pashtuns. My sincere advice to Khani100 is to stop referring to an incomplete version of Dorn's work of 1829 and focus on the final version of 1836 comprising of two volumes. I hope, by reading volume 2 of the final version of Dorn's work Published in 1836, his confusion about reliability of the content added will stand removed as his discussion suggests that he has consulted only volume-1. I wish we,The Tanoli, engage in some constructive discussion and arrive at some consensus on decent of Tanolis. God bless you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastkhankhel (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my dear friend. I have already answered your objections again and again and nowhere either in 1829 or 1836 do I find a mention of any of the so called 'issue' that you mention; and I must again insist that Dorn's incomplete translation isn not an reliable source here, nor an accurate one. I am basing this on my personal reading of the original text of Khwaja Harawi's 'Makhzan' , in its 1799 print or reprint, based on an original handwritten MS from the old Rampur library. This was published for your interest, by the Honble East India Company, and after 1800 was also taught as part of the curriculum at the old Fort William college syllabus, for a long time. The thing is, as a fellow Tanoli, I believe that (a) the Tanoli might be of partial Pashtun and partial/mixed Turkic descent and (b) that over time, we might have been to some extent 'Pashtunified' by living in close proximity with Pashtuns proper; but the thing is, to be honest (and I sincerely hope you will not take offence at my candidness) that there is no real, acceptable historical evidence of this speculation and trying to 'manufacture' some sort of fake and cooked up 'evidence' is neither truthful nor good. It serves no good purpose. Let's then agree, as brother Tanolis, to remove all fictitious and unreliable material, and lets be objective and unbiased and let's think beyond some narrow 'tribal', egotistical mentality and embrace positive Wikipedian editorial standards, here. I hope you will try to understand and appreciate these points, at last. I have repeated these time and again here and on your user talk page, and I have no wish to be engaged in a negative editorial war as its self-defeating and useless. Thank you, and very good wishes, Khani100 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

I am sorry if my comments hurts you. Fortunately, I am in possession of a soft copy of both volumes of 1836 Dorn's work which I personally downloaded while studying in the University of Melbourne. You may be justified in your words as you have different version. I shall suggest you to also consult other version as it is university based work. East India Company had its own agenda of divide and rule. As a student of history, you shall agree with me that in the period of Painda Khan Tanolis had cordial relationship with neighbouring Yousafzais which altogether changed in the period of Jahandad khan. We need to think about it. We also need to conduct some new ethnographic studies, especially in the Mahaban area from which Tanolis migrated. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastkhankhel (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My dear User;Mastkhankhel hello, and thank you for your comments here. I accept your aplogy. However-- No its not a matter of being hurt, its more about being accurate and rational as possible under existing circumstances. As a former PhD scholar who qualified from the UK and a full time research scholar I try my best to be balanced and to check out various sources, including the Dorn volume/s. However, the fact remains that Dorn supposedly made his translation from an original/old MS version of Kh Niamatullah's work but it DOESNT correspond to it at all, in many places. I have also read as I informed you the original version reprinted by the HEIC at Calcutta in 1799, from the famed Rampur MS, and I fail to see (a) honestly, why the HEIC would want to tamper with this due to some supposed 'divide and rule agenda'? What agenda? At that time the British hadnt even come close to the North-West Frontier and had no or very little idea about Pashtuns or other peoples here, such as Tanolis etc? (b) sadly, most of the present anti-HEIC speculations in post-colonial contexts seem to be based on such unfounded and facile speculations, of an emotional rather than a logical and objective approach. And the fact is, most of the early work either reprinted or carried out in the field, was quite above reproach. So, let us then please not enter into this controversial area, which just isnt borne out by factual evidence. As I requested before, we can only speculate on the origins of Tanolis and many allied tribes, lost in the remote mists of time. However, I do agree with you that we can at least try to look more closely at later historical events and try to posit informed points of view, on the basis of facts. In response to your comment, I would say that Painda Khan 'baba' had a rather mixed relationship with many people -- eg the Yusufzais as well as many other nearer tribes of Kala Dhaka (Black Mountain) who are not really Yusufzai or are also of mixed Yusufzai nature; also with the Agror mullahs/akhunzadas; and even with the Sikhs. For various politic reasons, we note that at times he was diplomatic towards them (eg when for example he had to send Jehandad Khan as a hostage to them etc) and at other times, he was strong and aggressive. Indeed, his relationship with even his brother Madad Khan, of Phulra, was not without controversy. Madad Khan at times outrightly joined up with Painda Khan's opponents and we know that at a time he even laid claim to Tanawal itself, and wanted 'more' so to speak. At that time, the time demanded such moves and measures for survival and Painda Khan was successful in this. Later on, by the time British rule was formally instituted, after March 1849, and Jehandad Khan was firmly and completely 'in the seat' by both his own power and by the formal legal dispensation and writ of British rule in the Punjab and Punjab Frontier, things were taking a very different turn altogether. The boundaries of Upper Tanawal/Amb were more or less being settled and demarcated. And Jehandad Khan had no or little need for subterfuge or diplomacy. He knew he firmly had British support behind him, so he could (a) afford to politically dominate over the Yusufzais and other people of the Mahaban (b) make his position further securer and better and stronger by siding with the ruling British colonial power in the region, by helping them in the early Black Mountain campaigns and (c) consolidate his own power and that of his descendants subsequently, by also assuming an 'indirect hand' in interfering in Swat, Buner and Malakand generally. There are hundreds of intelligence reports and items of secret correspondence dating back to the 1840s and later, held at the OIOC/IOR (India Office Records) at the British Library, London, showing the de facto situation via a vis Jehandad Khan's position and his strong contacts with the British government. Indeed, we can even say that he really laid the modern 'foundations' of Amb's special prestige till 1947. All the later Nawab sahiban till Nawab Farid Khan mostly followed the basic policy guidelines laid down by Jehandad Khan. Hope this helps you to place things into a larger/broader historical perspective? I am sure we can do further work on understanding Amb state politics , at the proper forum i.e. Amb (princely state) page. Regards, Khani100 (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Further note for the record

Hello, dear editors, on Wikipedia, I would like to make this further statement on record, w ref to the above comments by User Mastankhel who is also a Tanoli like me. But who seems to have taken umbrage to my corrections and bona fide edits and candid comments. I have already answered the objections again and again and nowhere either in 1829 or 1836 do I find a mention of any of the so called 'issue' that were mentioned here and removed by me; and I must again insist that Dorn's incomplete translation is not a reliable source here, nor an accurate one. I am basing this on my personal reading of the original text of Khwaja Harawi's 'Makhzan' , in its 1799 print or reprint, based on an original handwritten MS from the old Rampur library. This was published for your interest, by the Hon'ble East India Company, and which after 1800 was also taught as part of the curriculum at the old Fort William college syllabus, for a long time. The thing is, as a fellow Tanoli, I believe that (a) the Tanoli might be of partial Pashtun and partial/mixed Turkic descent and (b) that over time, we might have been to some extent 'Pashtunified' by living in close proximity with Pashtuns proper; but the thing is, to be honest (and I sincerely hope that no one will take offence at my candidness) that there is no real, acceptable historical evidence of this speculation and trying to 'manufacture' some sort of fake and cooked up 'evidence' is neither truthful nor good. It serves no good purpose. Let's then agree, as brother Tanolis, to remove all fictitious and unreliable material, and lets be objective and unbiased and let's think beyond some narrow 'tribal', egotistical mentality and embrace positive Wikipedian editorial standards, here. I hope all editors will try to understand and appreciate these points, at last. I have repeated these time and again. I have no wish to be engaged in a negative editorial war as its self-defeating--last time I was on Wikipedia (the reason I quite editing here regularly actually, and the matter can be evaluated from records please) was also due to a similar matter, when some 'big' and 'influential' people in Pakistan took exception to my attempts at making unbiased and objective edits to another page and to correct unreliable fallacies based on wrong or false or 'self made' sources, of a highly unethical nature. That really depressed me. I see so many Wikipedia pages/articles developing so well, so beautifully, but somehow, when we come to Pakistan-related pages, especially pages relating to tribes, descent/origin stories and family histories etc, we descend into an abyss of petty squabbling, falsity and all sorts of humiliating and insulting arguments and conflicts. When will this ever change? Why arent we the wiser for our experience? Why cant we develop objective, rational academic and research standards? I would hate to think that I was once again pushed out of the Wikipedia, perforce by somethign of teh same sort. I hope , please, we will all maintain civility and high standards and give up insisting on false and fake premises. Thank you, and very best wishes to all. Sincerely, Khani100 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Started my User Page today, after duly registering.

Dear Asad I am really astonished why some friends are consistently rejecting the research / publications of a renowned historian of 19th century 'Bernard Dorn' who happened to be an expert in Afghan History. I have soft copies of both volumes of his book ' The history of afghans'. Please share with me your e.mail, I can send you the same for your satisfaction/ verification. You may not agree that Tanokhel is apex ancestor of Tanolis but at least we can take it as a view point for further research Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastkhankhel (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User Mastkhankhel, hi. Im sorry I dont understand what the problem is please? Bernhard Dorn's translation of Naimatullah Harawi's Makhzan is, I am sorry to say, a very poor and unreliable book and is not accepted as a proper citation or reference source, in any case. Nor is the Makhzan itself a reliable volume, as you know it was written in the Mughal Emperor Jahangir's time to please Harawi's Pashtun patron, a Lodhi sirdar, so its been rejected time and again as a reliable source. Please, make a note of this. I dont see anyone with any issue with you and cant fathom why you are astonished? I dont know if you have any prior problems or issues with other editors, but that's none of my business, all Im interested in is to ensure that high quality and reliable resources only are used in any articles that I edit, and I wish to see improvements here not degeneration. I have no issues whatsoever and certainly believe that your repeated edits were probably in good faith, however the source or sources that you employ, are not reliable or worth citing/refering to, so whats the point of repeating them? Further, please kindly also note the following points that

• In all these Indian/Pakistani tribe and caste related articles, it is mutually agreed by general consensus to behave with exceptional degree of civility and good manners, and to follow certain set standards of conduct and scholarly integrity. However, you seem to have some sort of problem, why have you vandalized my User Page with your note same as above? When you very well know you have to leave a message on a user's talk page?
• Also, it is mutually agreed by consensus, established some time ago I believe that none of the 19th c unreliable sources, nor British colonial adminstrators' books, nor similar material(s) will be used or cited in such instances on these tribe/caste related articles, and only modern, contemporary anthropological material of a scholarly nature, and published only by reliable publishers (I think some lists have been shared in notes here in this Talk page above) or appearing in reliable peer-reviewed academic journals, etc, is acceptable.

Hope you will please follow these regulations very carefully and kindly also maintain necessary decorum at all times. AsadUK200 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200

Dear Asad

I am sorry you are again imposing your will and trying to dictate your terms which in no way is considered a standard norm. I have always been polite and maintained all standards of conduct and scholarly integrity as depicted in my earlier notes rather others have to some extent shown aggressiveness in their notes . Frankly speaking, I suspect you are registered with various names and are consistently manipulating things according to your will. To keep the record straight let me tell you that neither you nor I, are an authority to nullify the research done by researchers of repute like Bernard Dorn and Neametullah. The remarks you have passed about Neamatullah are itself against the so called decorum you are referring to in your note. As a student of Afghan's history, let me tell you that the whole history of Afghans revolves around two books; Makhzen-e-afghani and Tarikh-e-Farishta. If these two books are excluded, nothing is left behind. You need to take note of it . As regards Bernhard Dorn's book, it was completed by him, after about seven years of writing Part-1, in 1836 when he wrote Part-2 of it. The reference which you are deleting time and again, has been taken from this very 2nd part. The logic in insisting on retaining this edit lies in the fact that it provides a convergent point for both theories about descent of Tanolis i . e Turco Mongols and Pashtuns. If Tanokhel, decendant of Ghilzai as mentioned in Dorn's book, is ancestor of Tanolis, then both the theories seem to be two faces of the same coin, and provides 'food for thought ' for the new researchers. At the end, I leave it to the Wikipedians to decide whether to retain this information or to delete, as they are the better judges.

Regards

I think that both users have some valid points, but the bottom line is, that Dorn's translation is not an acceptable work, it is a very poor translation with many problems and thus, not necessarily a reliable source for citation. However, let's try to reach a civlized consensus between both editors/users. Im going to make necessary amendments to reflect both perspectives. Regards Khani100 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2014

Tanoli migrated from Tonbol Pass or Taanal Pass to the Gardeez and Ghazni (Cities of Afghanistan) in 1100 AD. In 950 AD when Sultan Amir Sabuktigin invaded on Hindustan, Tanoli tribe came with his army and resided in the valley of Swat and Buner. Anwar Khan Tanoli was appointed as head or cheif of the tribe by Sultan Amir Sabuktigin.

Tanoli tribe is also present in different areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan

In Pakistan, they live in Swat, Mardan,Dir, Bajour,Buner,Shangla,Tanawal, Abbottabad,Pohar,Lakhala,Havelian, Haripur,Khalabat,Malakand agency, Dargai, Sakha Koat, Charsadda, TopiSwabi,

Tanoli tribe was prominent alliance of Ahamed Shah Abdali, Tanoli fought the battle of Pani Pat aginst Marrata. The Cheif, Zaberdast Khan Tanoli gained the title of Suba Khan from Ahmed Shah Abdale because of his bravery and boldness in the battle of Pani Pat.

In AD 1752 the Tanoli Chief Sardaar Zabardast Khan allied with fellow Afghan, and King of AfghnistanAhmed Shah Abdali, in his conquest of India. His renown was such, that he gained the title of Suba Khan from Ahmed Shah Abdali for his bravery in the historical battle against the Marathas at Panipat, where two hundred and fifty thousand strong army of Marathas were famously defeated by just sixty thousand of Abdali's soldiers and allied Muslim tribes. His later grandson, Mir Nawab Khan saw the Durrani empire crumbling and defeated the Durranis, thus freeing his kingdom of their control, however, in this battle he was killed by Sardaar Azim Khan

Amir Usman Khan (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, re User Amir Usman Khan, I would please like to correct that historically (a) No Tanoli called 'Zabardast Khan' was on record at the 3rd Battle of Panipat, there was one 'Zabardast Khan' who was from Jalalabad but he was an Afghan not Tanoli, and a commander under Ahmad Shah directly, (b) the 'Zabardast Khan' that you mention, was a Pallal Tanoli, who was in fact a later local administrator of Tanawal area, during Durrani times, he was given the title of 'Suba Khan' and was appointed by Shah Timur Shah, son of Ahmad Shah, quite some time later in 1771-1772-descendants of Zabardast/Suba Tanoli are settled in 3 places ie Bir, Shingri and Phuhar in Hazara, NWFP/KP. Also (c) Mir Nawab Khan was a Hindwal Tanoli, not a Pallal Tanoli, he was ancestor of the later Amb family of Tanolis, he had NO direct link or connection to Zabardast Tanoli, Pallal aka 'Suba Khan'; this Nawab Khan was the same person who was sewn up into a sack and thrown into the Indus river by Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan Durrani/Abdali, there was no 'battle' , he was punished for being rude to the Sardar's mother and his son Painda Khan escaped and later returned and established the Amb jageer; which became a full-fledged state under his son, Mir (later Nawab) Jehandad Khan, after the British recognised his claim formally. I hope you will please kindly make a note of these facts, thanksAsadUK200 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200