Talk:Gakhars

pete 11:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Tatar Khan

Although he was indeed maternally linked to Hati Khan Gakhar he was not a Gakhar himself.

Interesting... but this is not what Babur wrote in his Baburnama! Babur did state the the Janjua were old enemies of the Gakhars so the 'Janjua family tree' might be unreliable. Please fully referance the source of your information.

But I must say here Sir, that the Janjuas being enemies of the Gakhars is no reason for them to fabricate their ancestral records to those of the Gakhar! This point is very naive. Where their records clearly show a Gakhar wife, they show it distinctly.--Raja 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I am very interested in the relationship between the Gakhars and the Janjua as the two most powerful clans in the region. My point was that tribal family trees are not usually considered a reliable or accurate historical source (especially 500 years ago!) and that tribal histories are usually coloured by feuds. I do not claim that Tatar Khan was a Gakhar, I report that Babur regarded Tatar as a Gakhar (described as "the cousin of Hati Khan"). Do the Janjua have a published history that I can consult?

Contradictory information.

One the Potwar page, it states that Mahmud Ghazni gave Potwar to Kai Gohar for his good service to him as someone who aided his invasion into India. But on this page it states that the Gakhars opposed and wrought much damage to Ghazni's army on the Mahmud section. Why is this article full of so many contradictions and as of yet no Gakhar historian (with respect) has been able to shed any light to this? In it's current form, if they opposed Ghazni and were the barbarian race of nomads, then the Kayanid Sassanian theory is therefore false.

The relevent early historical sources are confused and contridictory as most medeival histories are. The Gakhars preserve their Sassanian origins. Ferishta, the early history most mainstream academic opinion accepts, gives us a different history.See Gakkhar, A. S Bazmee Ansari, in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed.,Edited by J.H.Kramers et al, E.J Brill, Leiden, pp.972-74.

I accept your sources. But the confusion here is that if the Kokhars were used in teh Hindu Shahi armies against Ghazni, how then can Kai Gohar appear as a Gakhar/Kokhar chief and fight alongside him opposing them as a non Indian/Persian chief? i.e. they must have been in Punjab and well established before the coming of Kai Gohar (if the Kai Gohar theory is to be believed) I am asking because till date this confusing point hasn't been appropriately addressed and my Gakhar friends are perturbed at this and would like to know.

Please dont be offended by any questions of mine here, I have Gakhar blood in me also and I have respect for this clan and have many friends who I am trying to make aware of their roots and your information here has been pretty good thus far. Excellent work, please continue :) --Raja 20:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I am in no way offended by your contributions providing you provide fully referanced sources for them. On this point, clearly the Gakhars belive that they came from outside India with Ghazni and with his authority took over the (native) Khokhar territory, the Khokhars being the folks described by Ferishta as attacking the Ghazni lines "charging with head and feet bare and armed with verious weapons". I am happy to admit that other than the Gakhar legends there is no evidence for this at all. Ferishta is regarded as a fairly reliable source but of course hes is only a secondary historical source writing centuries after the event so again his account is suspect. So we have two, different and equally poorly substantiated accounts of the orgin of the Gakhars and I have presented both without bias.

Thats good to hear, I am satisfied with your intention. You mentioned about clan historians being bigotted etc. I have found this everywhere, believe me, so it's hard to accept another historians intentions without fully hearing them out. In your case, you seem to have come across them too. I am VERY interested in the relationship between the Janjua and Gakhars as I have the blood of both clans and it's my passion. Sadly as you have mentioned, our native regions dont always accomodate literary texts which are freely available so 2nd and 3rd hand info is usually all that is available.

With regards to Tatar Khan, my point is that the Gakhar and Janjua have intermarried over centuries and still do. Despite both being staunchly proud, they have considered the other respectable and warlike enough to intermarry for centuries e.g. the reference of Raja Mal Janjua also indicates their alliances in the past as the earliest record of a Ghakhar and Janjua alliance (as recorded in Tarikh e alfi and in the book 'History of India as told by it's own historians', V, p.163-4) now interestingly in this record it states that a Rai Mal allied with a group of Kokhars who dwelt in the mountains between Lahore and Kabul, this alliance also led to intermarriage, but our records show that this wife from the Kokhars was referred in our records as a Gakhar Rani. Both being dominant tribes, intermarriage between them must have continued for political reasons etc too. Now it is also mentioned that a Darwesh Khan reclaimed his land from a Gakhar Kayani Chief. The animosity seems to have started at around this period or just before. The Janjua family tree shows that a Tatar Khan Janjua (who had been assasinated and his land claimed) was the son of Darwesh Khan. Plus also the father of Malik Hast Asad, another Janjua chief had lost his family too I believe to the same Hati Khan. Therefore the animosity was very high (and understandably so between them, at this stage) My belief is that they are most likely cousins from before Hati Khan's time, but for some reason (power struggle, rivalry etc.) from Hati Khan's time things went a bit wrong. It is often the case that local powerful clans intermarried, hence they were likely to be cousins. They were both very tribal, similar chieftainship, both were very early converts to Islam and also territorial allies of the same regions. Both also rebelled together at times against the Delhi Sultanate, but after the Hati Khan episode, I believe they were on better terms from the Mughal period onwards.

Sorry for the long post, but great to converse on the subject and I'd be delighted to work alongside you to find out more about these 2 powerful clans. --Raja 18:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Some further sources

I have recently made contact with the Gakhar federation of Rawalpindi/Pakistan and if you would provide me your email (best is to get an account here and we can email eachother freely without your email being divulged if you would like). From what I am told by them, a Shajra does indeed exist connecting to Sasaan Ibn Bauman. Their representative also informed me that they are indeed very distinct from Kokhar Jatts and are in no way related to them. I believe that beyond much of their possible rhetoric, they may have some valuable sources of information on this subject for you? To be honest, in such endevours, any and every bit of info is useful to help piece a puzzle together. I'd be more than happy to help consult some other sources for you also.

Unsubstantiated edits

I have removed some POV additions made by a user this week. Unless a sourced account is provided for the negation of the articles presented points (re theory of their origins, Sassanid etc) they shouldn't be presented as credible points.

Points to discuss;

"Gakhars claims of a Persian origin are not substantiated by historical facts, in fact most historians deriving their conclusions from historical sources are of the view that Gakhars like other Jat and Rajput tribes of the region are of White Hun / Scythian origin and thereby descendants of hill tribes of the North-West."

Reference needed for this. Although highly plausible, this theory relates to many tribes, but this tribe is not mentioned by a contemporary source of that age, so a reference from a source is required here.

"After conversion to Islam many tribes of the North-west started tracing their origins to the Middle east. In fact, these tribes often tie their lineage to muslim saints or conquerors who converted them to Islam. Gakhars until recently claimed that they converted to Islam before the reign of Sabuktigin and they served in his army, even though there is irrefutable evidence derived from historical writings of muslim historians that Gakhars were still non-muslim as late as the invasion of Muhammad of Ghor at the beginning of the 13th century. The earlier conversion to Islam is not substantiated by historical evidence, but the theory of a pre-islamic Persian origin is still put froward."

This is a common mistake when one researches the Gakhars. The name is similar to Kokhar and hence there is a (as mentioned above by Pete, a genuine confusion between both tribes, especially if one were to consider that the sources were foreign in the first place too)

Gakhars have never alleged Islamic or Saintly origins and this point is therefore inapplicable to them. The book, Tareekh e Gakharaan ("History of the Gakhar") actually disputes that Gakhars assasinated Ghori. Infact the fact that no historian prior to Ferishta mentioned the Gakhars as Ghori's assasins, but Kokhars as so should be indicative of this. Ferishta (a historian) himself has frequently made mistakes between both these distinct tribes.

This point was included in this article because some references have claimed so (even if by mistake but still fair to mention), and hence can be put forward for the reader to make their own mind up, which is fair.

"There are however some historical facts that could link the Gakhars to the ancient Persians."

This is now at odds with the above statements attempting to negate their Persian Origin.

"The tribes of white Huns that entered the sub-continent around the 6th century occupied the region of central Asia in what is now Tajikistan, which was and still is in fact the only culture in Central Asia related to the ancient Persians."

This needs to be clearly referenced as to how this is applicable to the Hill tribes of India. In fact the Parsi community of India is also Persian and follows Zoroastrian faith and culture too.

"The most plausible explanation is still derived from historical facts. It is a well known fact that Persian speaking people from many clans were the first Muslims to settle in the area populated by the Gakhars. They were the people responsible for large scale conversions of the tribes of that region to Islam most prominent among them being the Gakhars."

Plausible point, and can remain.

"The Persian legends they trace their history to may have been the legends passed on to the Gakhars after conversion. Many prominent Persian clans still have genealogies going as far back as the pre-islamic Zorastrian era."

Again, this needs to be referenced by a source.

Another point re the titles is that Gakhars have used and still use Sultan. It is a Middle Eastern title bestowed to them by Mughal Emperor Babur (Sultan Hathi Gakhar was the first) and is still in practice by the current Sultan of the Gakhars, Sultan Erij Zaman Khan. A branch of Gakhar Adamals use Mirza which was bestowed after intermarriage with the Mughals (the title was issued to all Muslim royal houses from daughters were taken in marriage by the Mughal Emperors.

The main problem here is that Gakhar history is very elusive as it is interesting. Some historians even noted them as descendants of the Gargaridaes of Dionysius. I have come to agree with the maturity of Pete's work in that all referenced theories of their origin must be presented fairly and for the reader to decipher, agree or disagree. To push our points is not allowed on Wikipedia. Hence please accomodate this article and Wiki by referencing. I can help you out if you wish.--Raja 14:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins

"The earliest Gakhars in Pakistan arrived in circa 6,000BC in the period of Fridun. They moved to Pakistan as friends of to the Raja of Lahore . A portion of them dwelt in northern India. Much later, during the Islamic conquest of Iran, another, likely larger, wave of the tribe moved to Kashmir, then to Baltistan (Tibet), Afghanistan (Kabul) and finally to Punjab. It appears that the movement has been in waves."

The above has been removed as it is conflicting with the rest of the info on the page i.e. Gakhars entered India in 6,000BC, and the Sassanid dynasty established itself around 226AD, then it is impossible that the Gakhars in Pakistan are in no way related to the Sassanians as their name comes from the father of the first King Ardeshir, High Priest Sassaan Ibn Bauman.

Also citations needed for the confusing Aryan tribe that became Turkish, then Aryan again before becoming Indian/Punjabi.....

I heard some one talking about reference to Gakhar Federeation in Rawalpindi, kindly message me if you want any contacts with a few people that I know who run that organisation. (Mobeen)

HPPBOSTON: Under "ORIGINS", it states: "[edit] Family Origin The Gakhars are an Aryan tribe, thought to have moved from Central Asia to Turkey in circa 10,000 BC. For a period, they were likely assimilated into the Turks[citation needed]. Later in circa 8,000 BC, they migrated from the Central Asia, possibly because of the severe earthquakes in that region. By circa 6500 BC, they were in the modern day Kurdish territories shared by Turkey, Syria and Iraq[citation needed]. They spent several generations there before expanding into the neighboring country (modern day Iraq and Iran). As aliens, they were sometimes confused by the natives with Turks and Kurds. They finally settled in the area of Kehan in the valley of Sistan. There, they were able to establish rule and became known as the Sassanid (or Sassanian)Dynasty. Gakhar monarchs chose the Archimedean prefix "Kai" for their names, as in Kai Khusro, Kai kabad, Kai Murz, Kai Dun, Kai Kaid, Kai Gohar and so forth. Their descendants in Iran and in the South Asia became known as Kayanis."

There is a whole comedy of errors here. 1. In the very first sentence itself, the cite 10000BC as the date of the Aryan tribes migrating to Turkey. There was no Aryan, Indo-Iranian, or attested Indo-European languages/cultures at that time. 2. In the sentence beginning with "As alients", Turkish migrations didn't begin in mass until the 10th or 11th century AD (see Battle of Manzikert).

Current revision by 82.20.130.55

Gakhars living in India are Punjabi Hindus who have migrated to India from West Punjab tha(now falls in Pakistan) including areas of Rawalpindi , Jhelum , Sargodha ,Gujarat , after the partition of India in 1947 .

A simple search for Gakhar on http://www.google.co.in for Gakhar would provide to you enough sources on Gakhars living in India and who happen to be Hindu .

I appreciate your zeal for Gakhar history , however be informed that inconvenient as it may be in your scheme of things regarding Gakhars , a section of Gakhars are adherents to Islam and another are adherents to Hinduism .

Unless you have valid reasons to deny the existence of Hindu Gakhars on the Gakhar page please revert this delete yourself.Intothefire 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision by 82.19.79.227 as of 16:09, 3 February 2007

My response to your edit summary viz (Similar surnames of Hindus to Gakhar doesn't make them Gakhar. No citations, or sopurces, hence revert of troublemakers assertions)

I am somewhat surprised at the incessant desire to obliterate Hindu reference in this article . My friend what problem are you feeling.. ?? there are Gakhar that are Hindus and there are Gakhar that are Muslim . If you read my above note as well then you would not have made the statement you are making here. The Hindus have a well defined system of keeping genealogical records . A special branch of Pundits who normally congregate at holy places and called pandas keep these records . And whomsoever a family visits these places for a pilgrimage they record their signatures in these baikhatas .

Clean up

The page has been subject to some remarkably strange assertions in past months. Some rules need to be adhered to very strongly in view of this being an encyclopedia;

a) The claims and assertions MUST be supported with citations from reliable sources.

b) Where this is not possible, because of the length of the article, it must be removed, or at least some evidence provided to substantiate this. One such example is the Hindu Gakhar issue. With respect, can a citation of this statement please be provided? Not chapters of justifications etc, just SIMPLE citation will do.

c) Editors should work together to avoid any edit conflicts as it appears from the edit history, some of this is happening.

The references section also needs to be implemented, I will try and set this up asap.--Raja 15:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a citation tag to a reference that in India Gakhars are majority Hindus. I have not come across any publications that state this, so would be interested to review what info there is. NOTE this must be verifiable by wiki standards. If this is not available, the claim must be removed as per Wiki Creator's policy of staunch encouragement to remove uncited material. In this case, I think a reqwrite of this sentence may be best. But let's wait for the citation first.

Also the reference section must be improved as per wiki standards. Do we have any takers for this task?--Raja 01:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Supersaiyan|Raja - while on the repair of this page you may also consider the aggressive removal of content alluding to the existance of Gakhar Hindus completely fronm this page , I really find the penchant to remove this absurd and I wonder what could be the reasons ? The Gakhars now living in Pakistan have only as much claim to the Gakhar lineage as the Gakhars living now in India ...hindu or muslim .

My post [[1]] alluded to both Hindus and Muslim Gakhars in India ...then as it constantly happens it has been regularly edited . It would be good if the sentence conveyed that in India the Gakhars are Hindu and Muslim .

In the quality standard ISO and others is an important concept of traceability , which applied here would really improve on the verifiability of wikipedia .Unfortunately in this and many other articles if the standard of tracebility was applied more than 80% of the content on this and other such articles would have to be deleted due very week chain of tracebility between claims .

Cheers Intothefire 07:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see mention of any other faith groups that Gakhars belong to. But as stated above as per Wiki policy, I would like this to be verified. I have seen many Gakhar surnames among Indians such as Vishal Gakhar etc but this would be highly naive to assume this to mean they are Hindu. India has a massive array of Faiths to which one can belong to, therefore I propose;

a) I would either state the Gakhars live in India and Pakistan and leave their respective faiths out of the equation.

b) Or mention that there are also a minority of non Muslim Gakhars in India. This would be potentially correct and also truly reflective of the situation without making any uncited or unreferenced claims. I would research this aspect of the tribe and welcome the addition of the Non Muslim Gakhars addition to the page for neutrality.

Let's reach a consensus and apply the best sentence here. I read the Gakhar Hindus article and must say, unfortunately it doesn't have the required references either. (I say unfortunately, because I depended on that to have the citations I'm looking for to add to this article.)

I dont believe that the Gakhars converted from Hinduism to Islam during the Ghorid era as Punjab was not all Hindu at the time. The conquering forces had a habit of labelling all Indians as Hindus so this isn't reliable. Rather, the Iranian counterparts, the Parsis, retained their Persian heritage, Zoroastrian faith despite penetrating deep into the deep heart of India in Delhi etc. They never converted to Hinduism. I believe that the Gakhars, being Kayani i.e. staunch Zoroastrian supporters, would have also retained this faith until their later acceptance of the Islamic faith in the very late 12th century AD. The tribe itself would ofcourse over time, further migration be converted to many faiths, Sikhism, Jainism, Christianity and Hinduism possibly. But again, because all sources written on the tribe ascribes them all to be undoubtedly a Muslim tribe, I would safly assume such further faith conversions would be in a minority.

You further state that the Gakhars in Pakistan only have as much claim to Gakhar lineage as their Indian counterparts. I dont feel that relevant to this discussion, nor do I agree. How any one can suggest that the living representatives who still hold forts and ancient relics of their ancestral heritage, fully backed by historical verified and confirmed sources have the same claim as someone who has absolutely none of the mentioned, accept their surname, eludes me. I myself through extensive research and field research found many fake claimants to many tribes living away from the tribes in question (as living near them would result in being caught out). During army recruitment in Pakistan, many scheduled lower castes (not my words, but official language) would claim to be Gakhars, Kayani, Janjua, Awan, Tiwana, just to gain entry into the Pak army, but would later be caught out and removed. This still happens even today in rural areas.

But I for the record am willing to believe there may be some who migrated away for whatever reason. They would no doubt hold records of which branch their ancestrally descended from? Such a proud tribe would never lose their basic distinct tribal culture. Such methods helped tremendously in helping establish tribal connections for many other tribes, including my own. We really to work on this issue if it is to be successfully resolved.

--Raja 13:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Supersaiyan|Raja then lets start with using exactly the same meticulous yardstick on all articles starting with this article itself . Cheers Intothefire 18:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We will in time ofcourse, but seeing as this issue is at hand, let's do things one at a time. Provide the proof you are requested for. I will correct what I am able to, yet your claims are left wanting for proof.--Raja 10:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Supersaiyan|Raja - taking this forward seems this section needs to be removed viz

" Gakhars rise and fall in China according to [2]Chinese historians [3]. After the Battle of Talas in 751, the Chinese lost control of Central Asia to the Muslims Arabs and many of the Persians living here, left for other parts of China, while others converted to Islam. "

I agree. This has been removed, until better sources are available.

The first article linked to doesent mention the Gakhars anywhere
neither does the second ...but then frankly this gets too far fetched ...have you read it .
so like you said "Some rules need to be adhered to very strongly in view of this being an encyclopedia " Clearly is a a conjecture / original research  ?
should we leave it or delete it ? Then lets move to the next
CheersIntothefire 19:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

See above points. It has been removed. But any info regarding kayanis is applicable to this article as the Gakhars allege to be Kayanids in descent.

Supersaiyan|Raja can you tell me who is the publisher this book "Kai-Gohar Nama" by Rai Duni Chand, updated and translated by Raja Sultan Zahur Akhtar. Was Rai Duni Chand a Gakhar ? Was he a Parsi ? Sounds like a Hindu name to me ? Have you yourself read this book ?

I can indeed. He was actually a Mohyal resident of the Gakhars territories and the two families shared a close friendship. He was a very educated man and began the translation of the Urdu into English of the Kai Gohar Nama in the 60's and his clan of Mohyal Hindus are still resident in Pakistan. His full name is Raizada Duni Chand Bali. Sultan Zahur Akhtar is the current head of the Gakhar clan of Khanpur I believe and he is a very educated and esteemed personality of the region. He has updated the original book. I myself have read a lot of excerpts from the book, mostly in Urdu, but am in pursuit of this in English for Wiki purposes.

From what I am seeing on the net other than my material on the Gakhars is a long history of the Kayani and then suddenly the name Gakhar inserted in the end . Kayani doesent seem to morph into Gakhar Phonetically ..whats your take on this ...? Would you like to put this to the wikipedia test ??

Cheers Intothefire 19:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just as the Awan's are derived from the Alvi dynasty, just as the Bhatti's are derived of the Yadav dynasty, just as the Janjua are derived of the Pandava dynasty, the Gakhars are believed to be descended of the Kayanid dynasty. There has never been any question of the name Gakhar being a deriative of Kayani, so I dont understand where you got that from. The other point is, that this article focuses only a beginning section on the Kayanis where the majority sections all record the Gakhar history, so again, I dont understand what your on about. Many tribes of no immediate prominence in recent centuries record stupendous info on their "alleged" past, and record almost no current info. Yet Gakhars have an amazing past and continued into modern times historical documented evidence. To say what you did was kind of poor in my opinion, as it was unsubstantiated...

But then you are only (cleverly I might add) just diverting the Gakhar Hindus issue, by bringing out every other issue you can. Let's get back to the topic that you raised and created a seperate article for, yet are unable to bring fourth any material for? How about that? Even the writer of this article, Researcher Mr Peter Keyani has requested you to provide this info. Do have any or not? Raja 10:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Piruz death AS recorded in Firdausi s Shah -Nama

Supersaiyan|Raja next on the issue of Piruz going to China mentioned in the article ....we need to add what Fardusi has recorded in the matter of Piruz s death .The information about his and his son going to China is taken from a website ...? does this meet wiki standards ? or like you said "The claims and assertions MUST be supported with citations from reliable sources"

Firdusi records the death of Piruz in the Shah Namah , there is no mention of his going to China .Here is the complete section taken from the http://persian.packhum.org .

§ 4 How Pírúz fought with Khúshnawáz and was slain
This done, he called on God and marched his powers
From Samarkand. On that side Sháh Pírúz,
The frantic, led his troops on like a blast;
On this side Khúshnawáz with fearful heart
Prayed privily before the holy Judge.
The drums and trumpets sounded in both hosts,
The air was ebon with the armies' dust,
And from them both such showers of arrows rained
That blood ran down like water in a stream.
Then, like a dust-cloud, Sháh Pírúz advanced
With mace and Rúman helm, and as he drew
Anear to Khúshnawáz,*
the Turkmans' chief
Retreated, turned his rein, and showed his back.
The foeman followed fiercely. Sháh Pírúz
Spurred forward with few followers and fell
With others—chiefs and Lions of the day
Of battle—in the fosse, such as Hurmuz
His brother, glorious Kubád and others—
Great men and princes of the royal race—
Till seven had fallen headlong, men of name
With golden casques. Then Khúshnawáz returned
Rejoicing to the fosse and lifted thence
The living while the throne bewailed their fortune.
Now Sháh Pírúz, that chief of chiefs endowed
With Grace and state, had broken head and back,
While of the princes, save Kubád, none lived:
Thus host and empire went adown the wind.
Then Khúshnawáz advanced with heart content,
And head exalted with his warrior-host,
And gave to spoil the baggage and the foe,
For right and left were indistinguishable.
They made some prisoners and what numbers more
Were stretched by arrows on the sombre soil!
C. 1595
'Tis not for world-lords to be covetous,
For hearts that covet are the dark dust's mate;
The never-resting sky ordaineth thus
Alike for subjects and for king's estate,
And wringeth its own fosterling, be he
A fool or wisdom's pillar. None can stay
Upon this earth of ours eternally.
Make right thy provand: naught is left to say.
When Khúshnawáz had crossed the fosse his troops
Lacked not for wealth. They bound Kubád with
fetters
Of iron, heedless of his throne and race.
When tidings reached the people of Írán
About the fosse and how Pírúz had fought,
A wail of anguish went up from the land
For all those princes—men of high degree—
And when the tidings had been certified
Balásh descended from his golden seat,
Plucked out his royal locks and strewed sad dust
Upon the throne. Within Írán the host,
The cities and the women, men, and children,
All wailed, all rent the hair and tore the face
For grief, talked of the Sháh and yearned for him;
All sat in dole and woe while great and small
Took thought what course to choose and whether they
Should quit Írán and see where fell the fray?

This should certainly be added to the main page .
Cheers Intothefire 10:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I challenge the same, however, considering that I have not come across any info where the name of Shah Feroz is mentioned, also that a simple internet page is provided (not acceptable in this case) I have removed all mention of this, cleaned up the whole section including references for the claims made. This will be in effect until further citations from a written published source is available, which I am sure will be provided if available. Therefore in view of this request intothefire, I dont see fit to write any of the above into the main page. The Sheikha and Jasrat issue has been dealt with, but that requires a simple clean up. Peter Keyani above has ably mentioned that the history of both Khokhars and Gakhars has been so confused it is best to present both and let the reader make their own POV. We must simply provide it neutrally.

Now back to the main point, you have again NOT dealt with the issue you are asked to deal with, i.e. you brought the matter up, so why not clarify it? If you have no proof, then I suggest you say so rather than beating around the bush like this. At least this way I've managed to clean up a page lol. Time to focus my man instead of evading the issue YET AGAIN....--Raja 12:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Next is the issue of "His son Sultan Kaid " as mentioned in this article . Are you aware that Kaid is King of Kanuj in India at the time of Dara as recorded in the Shah Namah by Fardusi ? Do you want the page no ??...this reference should also be provided in the same section to put the use of the word in Perspective .

Your poor knowledge is again apparent. This article cites Kaid as a seperate person. This Kaid is mentioned from a period way beyond the recording of the Shahnama (the dynasty ended many centuries before Kaid of the 11th century, so your point has dramatically failed.) The link was removed as the link YOU provided to Kaid was a Sicilian subject! What are you doing?!

Besides, the claims on the article are from publishes sources to back them up. Your claim is of a completely different person in another country, another era, another faith, another culture, many centuries apart, and you expect that to be put aside with the articles mentioned Kaid of the Kayani dynasty? Thats a very nonsensical and impossible deduction at best.

So that brings us to the whole business of the lineage of Gakhars from Piruz -weak . Funny ??
couldent be ?? Now why am I desisting from editing this article ....because my contributions to wikipedia have been in the nature of adding information and not deleting ...which seems to be an endemic /nay epidemic with several Pakistani editors including you . Next unlike you I dont need constant team support as in your case ...Tigeroo , IP198 ,ETC because my posts are not stemming from denial syndrome ! Cheers Intothefire 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point has been dealt with above. I couldnt care less about how Tigeroo keeps showing your prejudices up. Your mentioning of a Kaid of India, in comparison to the Gakhar Kaid is centuries and countries apart. It also negates your claim of the Kayanid theory being weak based on your point. Your prejudice is apparent now. Not once has any editor made any generalisations against Indians. Yet my people (and apparently the cited publications by non Indian historians and researchers) are obviously "hurting" your view of Indian lineage? I have never denied my Indian roots, far from it. I celebrate them. But I do not (unlike you) deny the foreign elements to Punjab or it's people, whether it's Islam, Persian or Afghan. Again, I celebrate them. RSS is a bad Org bro, you should leave it ;-)

lol Supersaiyan you are on a name change spree first Bhamba now Sultan Kaid becomes Sultan Kaid Kayani...I could present you with a "e" marigold garland (gande de phullan di mala ) which is what happens at the constant road name changing ceremonies indulged by local politicians in my country .Cheers Intothefire 13:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sultan Kaid is believed to be descended of the Persian kayanid dynasty as per the citations provided (try it sometime). So I make no claim without proof, unlike you. I dont really care for your countries Politicians, they are all the same root as ours. But like I told you before, we will not sit back and watch you misrepresent our clans, nor allow you to misuse an online encyclopedia for your own prejudice and Points of View, which thus far require so much proof. You were unable to do with the Awan page, the Bomba Dynasty, now the Gakhar page? Insecurity or what.... ;-) --Raja 13:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

About Piruz and his son Kubad :from Fardusi s Shah NamAh.

Here is a brief summary from the Shahnama . It is extracted from Page 436 to page 440 from the book -The Shah Namah of Fardusi -translated from the original Persian by Alaxander Rogers and Published by LPP India -should someone want the address of the publisher I would be pleased to provide .

It is amply clear that Piruz or his son Kubad did not go to China and become generals in the Chinese court , they remained in Iran and ruled Iran .

The Shah-Namah records-Yazdagird is succeeded by his younger son Hormuz.
Piruz was the elder brother of Hormuz .
Piruz deposes Hormuz and his reign lasts 11 years
Khushnawaz and Piruz battle , The army is led by Hormuz and followed by Kubad , the son of Piruz .
Piruz falls into a trench and dies.
Kubad is taken prisoner
Khushnawaz is defeated by Sufrai
Crown given to and the reign of Kubad lasts 43 years
Sufrai is his Vazir till at the age of 23 Sufrai asks leave to return to Shiraz
Sufrai is put to death
People rebel at this and Kubad is himself put in chains . Jamasap the youngest brother of the king is put on the throne .
Kubad is put in chains and handed over to the son of Sufrai (Razmehr) who releases him
Kubad escapes with Razmehr and marries the daughter of a rich citizen of Ahvaz
With the help of the king of Heital he raises an army of 30,000.
When he returns finds that a son has been born to him who he names Kasra .
He regains his kingdom and the management of affairs is handed over to Razmihr .

Next as regards the timespace of the Kaid and the doubts on my post by raja I will shortly provide a complete detail from where it is taken in the Shah-Namah . Cheers
Intothefire 04:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You would saved yourself a lot of time if you took into consideration the fact that neither Pirooz/Feroz's name is mentioned in the article, neither is any work as a general in the Chinese court. So all the above is pretty much irrelevant.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the Kaid issue, they all openly declare their Persian Kayanid ancestry, even in remote rural kingdoms, no matter how many foreign pro-nationalists try to disprove it. If anything, they were also Shi'ah, the predominant faith of Iran! And you have yet to provide any citations for the original point for which you were asked? Post up all you like, but if your doing it to avoid the first point (re Gakhar Hindus) then it's kinda dragging now, no?--Raja 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Raja ji

Today I came upon the a post by you Raja which left me surprised
Lets take a look
Revision as of 08:07, 27 June 2006 (edit) (undo)
Supersaiyan (Talk | contribs)
(rv vandalism, back to Rajatghai version)
Newer edit →

"The chief man among the Gakhars in the Rawalpindi district is Raja Karmdad Khan, of Pharwala Admal. This man is the head of all the Gakhars of the (Rawalpindi) district, and is an Honorary Magistrate of the Bench in the town of Rawalpindi. The Admals of Pharwala, though much reduced in circumstances, are very much looked up to by all. The Admals of Pharwala are always called Raja, the other Admals are always spoken of as Mirza."A important point to note here is that all Gakhars have stopped using the titles Sultan and Mirza and started to use Raja and also started to use Kiani/Kayani at the end of their names after 1800, however there is no reference of them using Raja before 1800 or of them being Rajputs.

Now in this post you support the contention that the use of Kiani and Kayani is a phemenon that started in the 1800 only to quote you - A important point to note here is that all Gakhars have stopped using the titles Sultan and Mirza and started to use Raja and also started to use Kiani/Kayani at the end of their names after 1800, however there is no reference of them using Raja before 1800 or of them being Rajputs.

Here you say that they started to add Kiyani only in 1800 ,then you say they are not rajput so according to you what is your own actual stand on the Gakhars .

Cheers
Intothefire 11:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your doing your best to divert the issue of our own Hindu Gakhar issue again. Very sly, but overtly obvious. Thats strange, because what I stated is yet to be contested, and also, it also required a citation, which was never supplied by me, hence the removal of it much later. This happens in the course of research. Please show me how many MInhas Rajputs use their ancient patri archal name of Jamwal as their surnames? Please show me how many Janjuas use their patriarchal name of Pandava/Kuru as their surnames? Please show me how many Awans use their patriarchal name Hashmi? Please show me how many Rathores use their Suryavanshi patriarchal title name> Please show me how many Sidhus use their patri archal Bhatti name? Please show me how many Manj Rajputs use their patriarchal Yadav surname? Answer none.

But you clearly know this, and yet it doesn't negate the Kayanid thoery either. You are simply trying to indianise this tribe when this is blatantly unproven and also the wrong place to do this.

Wikipedia atricles do not justify, they simply describe, and that too WITH CITED PROOF (something which you keep evading). Get that through your head and maybe you wont be so surprised? Or is that too hard for you considering many Punjabi Muslim tribes you try to interfere with keep destroying the credibility of your comments and deleting your articles?

Rather than providing a simple answer to the Hindu questions posed to you, like a desperate natioanlist, you keep evading the points and try every trick in the book. Keep it up, for the world to see your ways ;-)--Raja 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peterkeyani
Notwithstanding my little run in with Raja ji...am enjoying this! First it’s important that this debate is happening on the discussion page and not on the article page with deletes. As an avid reader of Punjab history the political and military significance of the Gakhar clan is more than apparent to me and it has not been my attempt to degenerate ...as you would see if you carefully went through my posts concerning the Gakhars . Yes I have provided references that run contrary to the import of the article . Now for example after your last post I read page 233 onwards and uptil page 241 where the article ends in the Punjab Chiefs Conran and Craik , if you read page 234 you would see that there is evidence still to the contrary to what you have provided taken from page 235 .

There is more than one clan in Punjab with clan histories with connections to areas outside South Asia, this is completely possible. The converse is also true with many Afghan Persian people having south Asian lineage. There is hardly any clan or tribe that can claim 100%racial purity and claims by any if such weather Rajput or Khatri or for that matter Saxon may be foolhardy .In the end Farishta may be a Muslim historian but not south Asian ,similarly Barani , or Ibetson for that reason their prejudices are apparent . Thanks to wikipedia we have a more sophisticated tool to put the jigsaw together . The obliteration of the cultural religious history of any people or area is a mindless thing however it goes on ...the effort to deny that Gakhar Hindus exist or that Gakhar s have been Hindus will then conversely bring into question the entire subject of Gakhar lineage Muslim or Hindu .and this is relevant to all clans that have religiously heterogeneous populations Which is what my point has been . Deleting my posts calling me names … "RSS" … "desperate nationalist" etc as Raja ji has done doesn’t take the discussion forward …! aah well whats a little name calling when two Punjabis have a heated discussion ..!

Cheers Intothefire 18:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats probably the warmest post you put up, and true, Punjabi spirit is a passionate one! :-) But just to clarify, no one is suggesting there aren't any, we are just requesting evidence of it, important difference. I'll leave Peter to answer the rest. But I am glad that the tone has improved. Let's move this article forward in a healthy.--Raja 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

--Peter 12:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Constructing a history from different often differing sources is a delicate affair. One must consider not only if sources exist for things which are commenly held to be true but also the quality of those sources, some are better than others. Lastly, we should not be afraid to say that we do not know. In the Kaygawhnama, Duni Chand himeself was enough of a scholar to quote Ferishtas differing account of the origin of the Gakhars and to say he didnt know for sure which was the true account.

Sushil Gakhar, Sushma Gakhar, Rajinder singh Gakhar are some of the names that come up when you type Gakhar in Mtnl search for Delhi(ground zero of West Punjab migrants), clearly muslim Gakhars changed the title from Sultan, Mirza(titles conferred by medieval rulers while honouring particular tribesmen) and Raja to Kiyani relatively recently...with the advent of modern euducation(no mention of kiyani in any historical records)...its common for many Islamic converts to renounce any previous lineage from the subcontinent. We all know of Khatri/Arora...sheikhs of Punjab and Arab Wattus of Southern Punjab etc. but to change the title of an entire tribe after a legend....hmmm thats a bit extreme. No harm in claiming a phoren decent lol but at least leave the Gakhar name alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.81.86 (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What year did Sultan Kaid and successors rule Badakshan Kashmir Tibet

Hi Peterkeyani and Raja
Will you please tell me the year or the approximate date that Sultan Kaid mentioned in this article conquered Badakshan then parts of Tibet and then the period during which his successors ruled Kashmir for many generations .
Cheers
Intothefire 19:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But I can tell you which books cited this "claim" by the Gakhar tribe;

"Jammu Kingdom" by S.D. Singh Charak, 1983, p127"

"The Golden Book of India" by Sir Roper Lethbridge, republ. 2001, p234"

"The Panjab chiefs" by Lepel Henry Griffin, 1865, p574"

"The Acarya: Sankara of Kaladi" by I. S. Mudugula, 1985, p18

"The Hind Rajasthan, Or, The Annals of the Native States of India" by M.N. Mehta, 1985, p14, p23

No dates have been given for this claim, but it is mentioned in pre 12th century contexts.

Hope that helps. --Raja 11:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Raja -appreciate your answer .

I have been reading the Shahnama again but could not figure this out and also the pages from the Sassanid Empire and the monarchs listed therein ...I could not make :::out from the Kayanian dynasty page either . Well Your ref have provided food for thaught ... I salute your attitude and should learn from it .
Cheers
Intothefire 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Raja if Kubad is the same as Sultan Kaid
And Kubad or Sultan Kaid (Alias for Kubad ) was the son of Piruz
and Piruz the son of Yazdgerd III
and Yazdgerd III ruled between 632 to 651

Then we are talking about a period of about 700 and after with ref to Kubad or Sultan Kaid

But durying this time Kashmir was ruled by Lalitaditya Muktapida who was the emperor of Kashmir from 724 to 760 of the Karkota dynasty. . During his reign, he conquered most of Northern India Punjab and defeated Kanuj (North India) and then he went out of India to conquer Tibet, Ladhak, Badakshan as far as Persia .

What would be your view here then with regard to information in the article which offers a completely different perspective on the origins of Gakhars . According to me a lot of information has been selectively taken from the Gazeteer of Rawalpindi district 1893 and 94 as well . For the moment I am not going to edit the article or add this information or put citation remarks but await your response .
Cheers
Intothefire 04:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply intothefire. I've been researching somewhat into this myself. There are a couple of things which I think you've laterally also come across too. I dont think Kubad and Kaid are the same. In fact, there is a few undeniable discoveries and similarities which could aid the understanding of the topic.

First off, I dont believe the son of Firoz/Pirooz angle, but thats my POV rather than an established fact. But I do believe the tribe is certainly from Kai origin. There are many Gakhar sub tribes such as Sunaal, Keswaal etc which were ousted from the main Gakhar tribe many centuries ago, they lived completely independantly socially and geographically from the main tribe BUT also (consistently) mention their Kayanid ancestry, but not through Feroz. Rather, they allege they are descended from one of the 10 royal houses of the Kai's of Iran. (Kayanid would in this respect would be a social distinction, i.e.class.) In this context, this level of centuries old consistency cannot be suspect. This is possible, as this is also alleged with some success by other north Indian tribes too.

Now back to the interesting bit. I too have also looked into "Kaid Raj" (some Gakhars have mentioned him by this too, as well as "Sultan Kaid"). Now he has infact actually done many of the things that the Gakhars alleged "Sultan Kaid" to have done such as rule Kashmir, conquer Badakshan etc. I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that "Kaid Raj" and "Sultan Kaid" are one and the same, despite the eras being completely off by centuries.

Your are right regarding the timing of the eras. Kaid Raj lived around 350BC, which to me would indicate, that Gakhars have been indigenous to India much longer than 1000BC. In fact it would mean over 2350yrs, thus also being consistent with Ferishta's account of their presence in Punjab in 7th century AD.

Also Kaid itself is a middle eastern name, so the dynasty of Kaid Raj being Persian cannot be ruled out. Infact around 2,500 there were many entries of foreign Aryan conquerors, Greeks, Turks, Scythians (pre 2nd century), Persians have come through here up fairly regularly in one form or another until even recently as 18th century. It would also explain a lot about the tribes habits etc. Ultimately, it's proven, almost all north Indian tribes are ultimately of foreign descent any way, so whatever a tribes ultimate origin is of little consequence. (In fact, Prof Hamdani once mentioned about the tribe, "whatever their origins, they are solidly settled as powerful tribe of Potohar, culturally purely Potohari.)

Thats what I think can be safely accepted so far re the origin research side. But I stress the importance of research guidelines here. Original research isn't allowed on Wiki, although the Gakhars are leading much research themselves also. Unless it's printed in a book, cant be used. Either way, given the dates and Kaid Raj's undeniable similarity to the Gakhars alleged Sultan Kaid, what do you think? --Raja 10:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Raja
Lets go back to what the article says in the section Earliest Gakhars
please relook at the section .It currently states
" They claim he later conquered a part of Tibet where they remained for many generations before extending their dominions over Kashmiri regions and later gaining alliances with Sebük Tigin and his son, Mahmud's campaign of conquering India "

Now Sebük Tigin was around between 942 – and 997 .
Therefore the article is alluding to a Sultan Kaid (and not the Kubad son of Pirooz ) and his descendent a few generations before Sebük Tigin.

The existene of such a Sultan Kaid is ruled out because
the king ruling Kashmir durying this period was Lalitaditya Muktapida and not Kubad.
Moreover Lalitaditya Muktapida was a Hindu and not a Zoroastrian

Now unless someone proves Lalitaditya Muktapida was a Gakhar .
But the article vehemently opposes the notion that the Gakhars were ever Hindus .

We need to fix the era of the Sultan Kaid mentioned in the article , if as you say this was 350 then we have another problem because durying this period the names of the Kings from Sassanid Empire are
Shapur II 310 to 379
Ardashir II 379 to 383
Shapur III 383 to 388
Bahram IV 388 to 399
No Sultan Kaid here as well !!

Nothing here is original research all of it is already on wikipedia articles .
Well if we are talking about oral tradition ...wikipedia does not recognise tradition as you yourself have mentioned .
Then again we need to focus on the period of the Sultan Kaid mentioned in the article .
Cheers
Intothefire 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your missing the point here. The article contains citations of the tribes claims. The claims were made of a Kai descendant known as Kaid and his descendants. Now, if you are going to justify for or against, that isn't encyclopedic. The article (or indeed or any article on tribes) should describe a tribe, rather than justify their existence or claims. Oral tradition is NOT ccepted accepted. But like I keep telling you (your reading comprehension I have noticed is consistently poor) oral tradition THAT IS RECORDED in a citeable reference is accepted as a view. But notice, the language of the passage you mention. It states they "claim" rather than "it IS". Hindus "claim" Kali is a living breathing God, doesn't mean she is, to the rest of the world. It is what her believers believe rather than a proven scientific fact. Your poor comprehension again....

I think the difficulty here, is that you are trying to "Hinduise" a tribe that clearly has never been recorded as a Hindu tribe. There conversion to Islam has been recorded clearly. But their previous faith has been mentioned as barbaric (polyandry, female infanticide etc etc etc), certainly not of any Hindu sect I have knowledge of!

I actually thought you had changed and were going to improve the article, but your still on a crusade to yet again Hinduise another tribe. You once commented it's a Pakistani trend to look for foreign descent. A sad insecure fallacy as many Pakistanis are proud of their pre Islamic ancestry, but more so of their Islamic ancestry which is much more illustrious and eulogised. Keep up the campaign, 1 wiki page wont change tens of historical evidence and the tribes own pride knowledge of it's ancestry ;-) --Raja 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Supersaiyan|Raja and Peterkeyani
Eid Mubarak !  : )

We will carry on the discussion after Eid .
Intothefire 17:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks intothefire, nice to read a pleasant note! And Khair Mubarak to you. Please get involved with the festivities wherever you are, thats my heartfelt dua for you :-)--Raja 14:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Supersaiyan|Raja
Discussion continued on the issue of "What year did Sultan Kaid and successors rule Badakshan Kashmir Tibet "

My responses to each of your comments .

Supersaiyan|Raja I think your missing the point here. The article contains citations of the tribes claims. The claims were made of a Kai descendant known as Kaid and his descendants. Now, if you are going to justify for or against, that isn't encyclopedic. The article (or indeed or any article on tribes) should describe a tribe, rather than justify their existence or claims. Oral tradition is NOT ccepted accepted. But like I keep telling you (your reading comprehension I have noticed is consistently poor) oral tradition THAT IS RECORDED in a citeable reference is accepted as a view. But notice, the language of the passage you mention. It states they "claim" rather than "it IS".

Response Intothefire - No comment from me , not even on your unkind words about my reading comprehension being consistently poor . Well this will not take forward the exploration of the specific question being discussed here .

Supersaiyan|Raja says :Hindus "claim" Kali is a living breathing God, doesn't mean she is, to the rest of the world. It is what her believers believe rather than a proven scientific fact. Your poor comprehension again....

Response Intothefire: Raja yes you are right ...but you got the gender wrong and you also generalised . All religions are being practicised by their respective followers at different levels ..from the superstitious to the esoteric , and ritualistic to meditative ,Anecdotal to mystical . Some see the idol , others see her as a manifestation of an aspect .

A relaxing activity for me is to watch TV channels with some of the clowns masquerading as gurus and to hear their take on Hinduism . If this were not bad enough jokers in the audience ask them all kinds of demented questions and then these worthys provide their own spin .

As someone who has read the Koran (Pickethall translation), its apparent to me as well that Islam is being practicised at widely different levels of understanding , often Arab practices passing of as Islam .

Point is we are having a discussion on a specific point concerning Gakhars viz , "when the Kaid mentioned in the article lived " , well anyone can believe anything no problem but when it becomes the basis to build a hypthesis to which selective information is added or not tolerated in a scholarly article such as wikipedia then subjecting the basis to questioning becomes valid . Specially since the yardstick for demanding authenticity you applied on the mention of Gakhar who were Hindus was so enthusiastic . Well that your objections paved the way for improvement was a blessing in disguise . More importantly will the history of the clan gain or loose by an investigation or exploration of differnt sources even if contrary to commonly held belief

As to your repeated assertion to me "Your poor comprehension again...." . Well attacking me personally is not going to answer the question we have here ....lets concentrate on the matter at hand .

Supersaiyan|Raja:I think the difficulty here, is that you are trying to "Hinduise" a tribe that clearly has never been recorded as a Hindu tribe. There conversion to Islam has been recorded clearly. But their previous faith has been mentioned as barbaric (polyandry, female infanticide etc etc etc), certainly not of any Hindu sect I have knowledge of!

Response Intothefire:First of all the person who has mentioned this trash about the Gakhars is Farishta . Its his jaundiced opinion and not a fact . Now your friend Tigeroo has gone to the extent of even declaring that Ferishta is a primary source and therefore unreliable . He is currently supporting the removal of Ferishta s content from several articles . While on the matter do you also agree that Ferishta is a primary source and therefore unusable and unreliable on wikipedia ? I am not trying to Hinduise a tribe , I am only providing citations from standard texts some of which you yourself have used .

Supersaiyan|Raja:I actually thought you had changed and were going to improve the article, but your still on a crusade to yet again Hinduise another tribe.

Response IntothefireRaja its apparent I disappoint you . However what has dissapointed me is how many of my posts from standard secondary and tertiary texts concerning common Indian and Pakistani clans which happen to be Hindu , and muslim have been deleted or vandaled apparently by what I would surmise are Pakistanis . I cant blame you , but its a response to what I believe is an attempt to obiliterate Hindu heritage from the regional history of areas that now constitute Pakisan

Supersaiyan|RajaYou once commented it's a Pakistani trend to look for foreign descent. A sad insecure fallacy as many Pakistanis are proud of their pre Islamic ancestry, but more so of their Islamic ancestry which is much more illustrious and eulogised. Keep up the campaign, 1 wiki page wont change tens of historical evidence and the tribes own pride knowledge of it's ancestry ;-)

Response Intothefire I have provided ample matter in this discussion extracted from various sources with regard to this article for you or other serious scholars to ponder on .

Would like your opinion on Frishta as a source !!
Cheers
Intothefire 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Intothefire 10:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Forward discussion

Thanks for your replies intothefire. I firstly apologise for my generalisation re: Kali, it was a basic assumption from what I hear and I am sorry if I unintentionally offended you or any other Hindu brother/sister. That was most certainly not my intention at all.

My 2nd point regarding your poor comprehension was that I really think you should fully read and carefully understand some points to fully appreciate them. Gakhars when mentioned in articles have a great historic significance to India/Pakistan. When they are discussed, a point of mentioning their origins is made. Similarly, Chauhan Rajputs assign they are borne of fire hence agni kula etc. Just because they say it, does not mean it to be true, but is simply classified that they "Claim", which there is sufficient reliable proof that they have many times consistently claimed this to be the case, to warrant a strong mention of this claim.

Ok, I understand what you mean regardikng researching the issue. By all means do it, I do it too on many things, but wiki isn't the place for it. It's an information database, not a research point or centre. In fact Wiki strongly emphasises this very point.

I strongly back your emotion that the pre Turkic history of many tribes should be recorded and celebrated. I am very proud to be the descendant of Rajkumar Arjun Pandav, many Gakhars are proud of their Zoroastrian Kai ancestry. You willl NEVER get any argument from me on this point. I even argued vehemently with an alleged Pashtun wannabe who kept denying his India Hindu ancestry! Something I will always be proud of.

But if we stick with improving the article, rather than beginning a out and out research project, it would be in line with wiki policies. If the matter is that much of interest to you(as to me also) then I suggest a blog site would be best.

Regarding Ferishta as a source, I have always said, he describes many centuries later what he had heard to be the case and he recorded it. Many historians who record things do so. Mr Keyani (who is an eminent University Researcher) feels he is reliable and has given his view on this above.

I have put on record my POV regarding the descendancy of the last Kayanid prince VS the descendancy of a much more prior Kayanid royal house (hence the possibility of longer residence in India).

Beyond this, what else can be remarked or achieved, I am willing to help and discuss.--Raja 13:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why gakhars use title of Raja when they are not Rajputs. According to Punjab Castes book the only 2 tribes described as being addressed as Raja are the Chibh Rajput and Janjua Rajput. ---- Raja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.79.101 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Raja itself is not a sole Rajput title. Even some Jat zamindars called themselves Raja during the age of the Sikh empire. Gakhars of the main 5 branches ONLY, hold the title Raja as they are descended from Royal blood warlords. They are also actively referred to as such throughout the modern salt range to this day since ancient times. Some used Malik, the heads of the tribe always used the Mughal bestowed title of Sultan.

The affore mentioned book confirms this as the Janjua and Gakhars ruled the Salt range in the most incomparably powerful way. Even Mughal Babur described that the Gakhars royal titles set up was identical to the Janjuas (see Baburnama). The Gakhars during the time of Sultan Muqarrab Khan even extended their territory far into the Chibh kingdom defeating them also.--Raja (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying the real RAJAS are the Janjua and Gakhars and not Chibhs --- Raja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.79.101 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not, and please dont make such silly assertions (like you have been this year on the Ghakhar page where you keep distorting the book quotations from the Rawalpindi Gazzetteer). I simply stated that no tribe ruled the Salt Range as powerfully as the Gakhar Kayanis and Janjua Rajputs, this is a fact that is still true today, despite Pakistan's reublican status. Chibh Rajputs are a good tribe in their own right and have ruled very well in their own region, but you are WRONG in your assertion that only Chibhs and Janjuas are called Raja. Gakhars have been referred to as Raja and recorded as so in many colonial textbooks my friend and I have the books as proof should you require it. If not, go to Lehri Gadari and ask the Iskandraal Gakhars or the royal Admals of Rawalpindi why they are called Rajeh lol.

If you are vexed because I included the Gakhars defeat of Chibhs by Sultan Muqarrab Khan, that was info regarding the modern history between these two tribes. I am not going to justify beyond this as my points are clear and direct. Lack of understanding is not an excuse bro.--Raja (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bro i am not vexed because i am not Chibh I am Janjua Rajput (Ranial) and am from Rawalpindi according to Panjab castes there is no mention of gakhars being addressed as RAJA it just mentions Janjua and Chibh Rajputs. However i will read the book baburnama that you mentioned earlier and any other books you recommend. So Chibhs, Janjua & Gakhars are RAJEH. Are there any other tribes that are Rajeh --- RAJA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.79.101 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats cool bro. The Rawalpindi Gazzeteer mentions that the akhars of that district are addressed as certain titles. Also read the Jhelum Gazetteer too thats also got some useful info. There are some other Rajeh, but truthfully, without bias, only Janjua, Gakhar Kayanis hold the highest rank and are addressed as Rajeh. There are other Rajeh tribes, but they arent as highly accorded at all and are usually addressed by name. In our region, to call any Janjua or Gakhar by name is asking to be dealt with by a public lashing lol--Raja (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Gakhar Mohyals

I came across an interesting page on the web that informs Gakhars are Mohyals , for those interested I have provided the link to the article . Bhera – The Town that Time forgot

The section from the article is reproduced below . "The Mohyal clan consists of the family names BALIS, BHIMWALS, CHIBBERS, DATTS, LAUS, MOHANS and VAIDS’s. Cerain titles were bestowed on them by the Moghul and Sikh rulers for their outstanding work. These include: Bakshi, Bhai, Chaudhri, Dewan, Malik, Mehta, Rai and Raizada . Six castes which embraced Islam due to the pressures of time were : Hussaini Brahmin, Gakhar, Khakhe, Bombe, Lange and Lohana. The last two are believed to have descended from the Laus. Gakhars, the fierce fighters of Pothar, were a sect of the Hussaini Brahmins."
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on intothefire, why dont you post up the FULL response to your queries on the Mohyal page? What did you have to hide? Is it maybe this response that a mohyal researcher gave you in which he states that Gakhars are NOT Mohyals?

For all parties please read this response that intothefire was given on the 9th of January, but failed to tell you for some strange reason..... ;-)--Raja (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Intothefire,

I apologize for any confusion the edit may have caused, but it actually does not state that Gakhars are Muslim Mohyals. What it does say instead is that as per Mohyals' oral and written history, the Gakhars prior to their en-masse adoption of Islam were part of a larger endogamous group of 52 lineages- of which Mohyals were also a part.

Regarding other stuff- Mohyal folklore also mentions of Gakhars' reputation of being fierce fighters who always fought well under some Kings whose lineages Mohyals claim to share, and also of Gakhars being rulers at some stages in history. They are also remembered as people with fine traditions of chivalry and loyalty, qualities that Mohyals traditionally extol as well. There is not a whole lot more I know on Gakhars, but will be glad to share what Mohyal history says on any specific questions you might have- if I'm aware.

Best regards,

Hu114sp (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC

Another ref from a Mohyal site regarding Gakhars being converted Mohyals

An extract from a a history of the Mohyals from a Mohyal web site provides the following information about Gakhars being converted from Mohyals .
[[4]]
The following section is reproduced from this website .

"6. A Conglomeration of 52 Castes A few centuries ago, the family of Mohyals was part of a conglomeration of 52 castes, which were as follows: (i) The seven castes of Mohyals as they exist at present, namely, Bali, Bhimwal, Chhibber, Datt, Lau, Mohan and Vaid. (ii) Six castes which embraced Islam due to the vicissitudes of time: Hussaini Brahmin, Gakhar, Khakhe, Bombe, Lange and Lohana. The last two are believed to have descended from the Laus. (See footnote)."

"Gakhars, also referred as Gurkhas: They were a sect of the Hussaini Brahmins who traced their pedigree to Parashurama. According to Sir A. Cunningham. the father of Indian archaeology. they were the Abhisaras of the Mahabharata and the Puranas. One of their ancestors. Raja Sughar. migrated from Ajudhya to Kashmir and his great grandson, Gai Lochan. founded the Gakhar clan. They enjoyed unchallenged sovereignty over the Shivalik ranges. extending from Peshawar to Dehra Dun. For many centuries. They led a daredevil tribal life and were fleree fighters. They fought along with other Hindu rulers to repel the invasions of Muslim marauders from the north. In 761 AD when the Afghans made many onslaughts on Punjab. the Brahmin king of the area deployed a large number of Gakhars along the west bank of river Sind. to serve as seClllity force. and also built a fort near the Khyber Pass which was managed by the Gakhhar garlison. In 1009. Raja Anand Pal of Lahore not only recovered the entire terlitory which had been earlier conquered by Mahmud Ghazni but also drove back his hordes beyond Peshawar. He achieved this with the help of the Gakhars who wrought havoc on Mahmud's forces and made them flee. In this war. more than 3.000 soldiers of Mahmud were exterminated and the historian Farishta has given a harrowing acccount of the fighting. These fabled warriors ultimately succumbed to the proselytism of Shahab-ud-din Gholi and his successors and were converted to Islam. during 12th and 13th centuries. Even after their conversion. they held the Mohyals in high esteem and rewarded them with high posts and jaglrs. Prior to the Sikh administration. Gakhras enjoyed supremacy in Doaba Sind Sagar and Takhat Pari was their capital. Sultan Lashkari Khan who died in 1706 had requisitioned the services of Raizada Mool Raj Vaid from the Maharaja of Jammu and appointted him as his Counsellor and gifted him 25 villages as jaglr. Some of this property was still in possession of the Vaids of Turkwal in Tehsil Gujar Khan. at the time of the partition. In his book titled Balnama. published In Persian by Raizada Rattan Chand Bali. the fraternal relations subsisting between the Mohyals and the Gakhars. have been highlighted."

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet the mohyal researcher denies this!!!!.

Another important point here, is that Sultan Lashkari Khan Gakhar died in the 1500's, NOT in 1706 lol. Khakhe are Janjua in origin as is well documented, corroborated and proven, Bambe have jack all to do with Brahmins, and even the Lohanas claim Suryavanshi Raghuvanshi lineage, so your research based on phronetics is both weak and feeble my friend.

Even worse is that the Gakhars themselves deny being part of the Hindu Shahi force, as they allege to have entered as Ghazni's aides, rather than Sahi aides. So no corrobration there Im afraid

Plus the article is amazingly flawed in certain places. The Gakhars HAVE NEVER BEEN confused with Gurkhas. Gurkhas are a completely different race altogether lol!!

You have been shamed so many times on this page with your hindufication attempts ;-)

And before you even dare to label me, remember, I am a Janjua, the son of Arjun, who's father Pandav was himself son of the greatest of Brahmin Rishis, Rishi Vaid Vyas, a prestige that we are aware of. So how another clan, descended from such ancestry, all simultaneously, all branches, no matter how spread out and at rivalry, would corroborate the same origin and ancestry, eludes me. It can only mean that they truly ARE NOT Hindu in origin.

Whats more shameful, is rather than celebrate their great history which undeniably began with the advent of Islamic embrace, you are hell bent on sticking to the origins, the only vague area, and area they shame you on by denying Hinduism completely. I pity you dude... --Raja (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, Guys - this is how wars start... Streona (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghaznavi and all his helpers.

Its amazing that so many tribes of Potwar claim to have riden in with Mahmud Ghaznavi.

Not really. If conquering tribes can reach as far as Delhi and settle there, how can it no be possible for a closer location, i.e. Potohar? In fact not that many tribes claim this, there are thousands of tribes that are settled in Potohar, dont over exaggerate.

Potwar was a barren and poor land without much wealth. It makes me wonder who in his right mind would not have gone on with Ghaznavi further east for the spoils of Hindustan and carried it back off to Afghanistan. Why stop off in Potwar? Ghaznavi never did.

Not quite. Potohar was quite a lucrative region for many powerful tribes, such as the Janjua Rajputs, Awan Maliks to name a few. You are also wrong, Ghazni DID leave a Sultan as his viceregency, so the spoils of war up to this region MUST have been significant if he didnt warrant wanting to go further.

For Example what was Rawalpindi before the Sikhs settled it?

It was still Rawalpindi. It was home to the Gakhars even then. Proof? The tomb of Sultan Sarang Khan is located there, the Kahuta region of Rawalpindi was a famed plane for the Kahuta Janjuas whose presence was recognised even by the Durrani emperor Ahmed Shah Abdali, who recruited both tribes in his conquest of India.

or someone name one place in Potwar in those times where these claiments settled of any value or resource they exploited?

Easy, Makhiala and Khewra. The world's largest Salt mines in Khewra were a massive asset since the early 13th century, and is still mined to this very day. These were owned consistently by the Janjua Rajputs only, till modern times. Mughal emperor Humayun is said to have ransomed great wealth from a Pothar Raja, Rai Piraneh Janjua when the Gakhar chieftain Sultan Adam beseeched him, in aid for his services. A Mughal emperor would never have used GREAT WEALTH in his own hand written accounts, unless it were of some immensity. He is the Shahenshah after all lol.

My hunch is these tribes were indigionus to these area's took the new invaders as their overlords and invented fake pedigrees to present at the durbars of the new rulers to get favors and assistence to settle their petty fueds with other tribes very much like the politics that go on to this day in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potwar (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I dont deny that this may have occurred for many people (hey, we have known Hun tribes that are claiming to be descendants of Sri Ram himself amongst Hindus lol.) I dont believe that this was entirely true for a great many tribes. I cannot see how a favour can be granted based on someones heritage, at all. It is ONLY the subjects OWN USEFULNESS that would warrant a favour with the Emperors. I personally think, the truth may lie between both possibilities. Exaggerations are rife, but to discredit someones ancestry without proof isn't appropriate or encyclopedic.

I hope I have answered your questions.--Raja (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have I guess with a sense of humour as well, but who are you ? i cant see who replied. Im kind of new to this forum need a little time to work out things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potwar (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, have added my signature for you.

Just a couple of things. This is an encyclopedia page, NOT forum, hence the discussion os only confined to discussion regarding the improvisation of the article only. Secondly, I am not a Gakhar, but a Wikipedian with a very active knowledge of Pothwar tribes.--Raja (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

2

Hi there Raja. Thanks for pointing out a couple of things. My family is from Potwar origin but now settled in the UK and jehlum. We are Rajputs who have Ghakhar and khokhar relations. Our ancestral village consists of many rajput garanas but majority are Jat qom like Mathial, bangial and Kalial and cheemas. One thing that i found interesting on my vists and interactions in my village with folks was the difference in physical attributes between these jat and Rajput. Jats in our village tend most to be over 6ft and well built and very outspoken. Our family is on good terms with everyone but my grandfather used to say never disturbs a jats nest cause it is like a beas nest best left alone or handled with care. I like all the folklore and i guess it bigs up my ego abit but i find it hard to belive that Rajputs could have ever surpressed these jats esp in our village. Any ways do you have any information as to these matials or kalials im just curious as to their origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potwar (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice to hear of your roots. No offence, but again, this page is not a forum, but simply a dicscussion page to better the Gakhar article only, hence this discussion is not as per wikipedia policy on here. If you want to discuss, you can use my user page.

However, just to answer some points, I know Mathials very well indeed and some as you state. They are very numerous around Mallala past Gujar Khan. Some of them claim Rajput status, whilst the other half claim to be Jats...

Rajputs are NOT a race. Rajput is a social distinction, a descendant of Khandaan of warrior and royal renown i.e. their deeds and prowess as opposed to their genetics and height lol. In fact history has proven that actually, it is MEDIUM height men who have proven great warriors i.e. Alexander, Genghis Khan, Amir Timur, Babur just to name a few. Rajputs usually only marry among themselves as they pride themselves on their blood exploits and ancestral traditions to only hand marriages to equals/barabari. Narrow minded, or passionate traditionists, I leave that for the readers to decide...

Regarding it hard to believe they were ruled by Rajeh, well Mughal Babur himself recorded how Gakhars and Janjuas ruled over the Gujars, Jats and other Pothwari tribes, with particular note that they were the traditional rulers of these tribes. This is also later corroborated by many familial accounts on both sides. This was different from the Kashmiri Dogri system.

As far as physical looks of Rajeh etc, I welcome you to attend Matore in Rawalpindi, Ratala in Gujar Khan, Kot Khakha in Azad Kashmir, Rawalpindi, Jhelum, Lehri Gadhari and meet some other Gakhars, Tuars, Varyas, Bhattis, Kunwars and Janjuas, Chibs, Mairs etc. I dont think it is right to make a generalisation like that without seeing the FULL picture, as I have personally met and discussed topics with some very physically strong Rajeh. Infact the Ratala Janjuas, have ruled their Jat subjects for almost 2 centuries, and even today dictate their voting policies! The Lehri Gadari Gakhars still have Jats working their fields and their menial work, which I have personally witnessed. Ultimately, tides change, rulers come and go, but real aristocratic bloodlines always rise again and again no matter how hard circumstances may come. This is true for other clans and not just Rajputs and Kayanis, but also some firm Jat clans, Mughals, Syeds and hardcore Pathans too. Khandani khoon akhir Khandaani khoon hotha hai....--Raja (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your wealth of knowledge on tribes of Potwar. I am a little more confused about Rajput being a social term because some of our relations in Gujrat PK are calling themselfs Jat Janjuas and title themselves as Choaudry but they are 100% janjuas as land records from Jhelum still have their share of lands left behind indicate their qom. Any ways this is a complicated topic and when i navigate to your home page we can discuss this further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potwar (talk • contribs) 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem chat to you on your page re this. But regarding the social issue, confusion is cleared; even some Gakhars that fell on hard times (and were no longer intermarried with the main branches, loss of prestige and mixing of blood with lower clans) also began using the lower Jat status. The main Rajeh branches of Gakhars were always hoarding their rishte to stop this loss of blood prestige and it is recorded in many books how they refused rishte to any clan except Sayeds. So the loss of martial and financial prestige occurred and following the plough became a neccesity, main branches disconnected from them. Thus the adoption of lower social terms. Another major reason being, that such clans also lie about their origins, proof being the main body of the clan deny their connection with them, also the fake clans cannot provide legitimate family trees with corroborative connections.--Raja (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting what you write I am amazed at your in depth knowledge about these things. You are right about the pride of the main branches of Gakhar Rajeh hoarding rishteys in order not to dilute their blood etc but I have seen that this was a folly on their part that only led to increased elopement of Gakhar women with men of lesser lineages. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potwar (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Prominent Gakhars in recent times

This section is a long list which seem unencyclopaedic to me. I have no idea who in that list should be kept -- maybe the entire list should go?
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

However the list might seem to you or anyone else no one has the right to delete the entire list. just becuase one person doesnt like it names of 100 people have been deleted. it the people who make the tribe not just the origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Raven in Orbit. What is your problem? Why do you keep deleteing prominent gakhars section?

Raven in Orbit's edit is quite appropriate. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, a directory, a soapbox or an indiscriminate collector of information. Please refer to What Wikipedia is not if you have trouble understanding that and other basic policies. You may however put that list on some other site and link to it from the article. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

who r u to decide who's name should be here.who is raja hassan akhtar.ur uncle? this is not purpose for ur uncle's name.the name of army chief gen kayani/ other well known global people should be here or someone who is a national hero.i only see gen kayani worthy name to be here and he is f not my uncle.who is anyone to decide who is ghakar chief.omg did i miss the election of ghakars 2008?u r freaks and sick.anyways u can have ur uncle raja hassan akhtar name here, he is proud of u anyways.the raja hassan akhatr is well known billioner and ex-president of pakistan..? prominent name of ghakaks section should be deleted.my formal appoligies to ur uncle raja hassan akhtar omg who is display his name then on internet?sick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.58.179 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Funny expression.

Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), most people included in this list are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Those who feel any single of these names should be listed in the article should provide a reference to confirm their notability. This is not me/us deciding who should be included or not, this is a well-established Wikipedia guideline. So please stop recreating this list repeatedly.

/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Many other clans including Janjuas have notable people section. Many of the people in this list are notable with respect to the gakhar community. So let the list remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farez x (talk • contribs) 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that similarly unencyclopedic directory/memorial site to notice. I have cleaned it up accordingly. You are welcome to file a Request for comment if you have a problem with the enforcement of WP:POLICY. As noted previously, you are welcome to host that list on some other website and link to it from here. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a bunch of articles needing clean-up. Let's start here.

/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that some behaviour of editors is not very encyclopedic. This site has rules, which MUST be adhered to. If you want a site with your clans prominent figures in it, then go and create one elsewhere guys. Its not allowed here. I suggest removing that entire section. Simly adding it to another page wont evade detection....--~Raja~ (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Amirkayani (talk · contribs · logs · block log) seems not to have learned from his recent 3RR block (see also: Adilkayani (talk · contribs · logs · block log), and given the lack of any other worthwhile contributions, this user obviously does not have any interest in making WP better. I've correspondingly filed a request for guidance at AN/I (WP:AN/I#tendentious reinsertions at 'Gakhars' & 'Kayanis (Tribe)‎'). What a waste of everyone's time. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Check reference citation numbered 1 in the article

The following content citation currently numbered 1 from the reference section seems to need a recheck viz

“ 'The history of this region (the Salt Range) from the thirteenth century onward had been a sickening record of wars between the Janjuhas and the Gakkhars for political ascendancy ”

.I have put a link to page 142 of the online version of this book and this page does not carry the content recorded on the page .Could it be that there is another page where this quote in the article is taken from , or a different book ?or a different publication ?
Advanced History of Medieval India by S. R. (Shiri Ram) Bakshi, Anmol Publ. 1995, p142
Will the author who put this please make the correction .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The online google resource appearst to have hiccups occasionally, this has appeared also the last time you came across the Kayani reference of Gilgit Kayanis Rajas also. Ty clicking this reference [5] and hopefully it should click to the actual page in question. --~Raja~ (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gakhar lies half truths and the facts !

Watch this page.. Article to follow soon.