From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anthroponymy  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

references needed[edit]

  • this page needs refs for the 'Gotras' which have been listed in one section
  • there is a section detailing related communities - Sub Castes of Kalchuri Samaj. What is the kalchuri samaj and why should its sub castes be listed under ahluwalia?
clarification would be appreciated. regards,xC | 06:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

References for Ahluwalia Gotras and Kalchuri Samaj[edit]

For Ahluwalia gotras plz visit For Kalchuri Samaj visit the below link. Sumit0014 (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit0014 (talkcontribs) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Only the followers of sardar jassa singh Ahluwalia are ahluwalia or walia...there are many castes in this society but don't relate them with Ahluwalias Sunny20000 (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Notables section[edit]

I am a bit concerned about the Notables section, which is presently headed as "People called Ahluwalia". I realise that this is a controversial issue but it has been discussed frequently and a synopsis can be found at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Unless the people named in this list have self-identified as being members of the Sikh Ahluwalia community (not just as Sikhs, not just as Ahluwalia) then they should not be here. Furthermore, either the heading needs to be changed or the section needs to be moved to another article, Ahluwalia (surname) - there is absolutely no way that anyone can prove all people bearing this name are of the Sikh community. - Sitush (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Support either limiting to sourced self identification or move to Surname (or both). -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok I found a good WP:Reliable source that lists even Muslim and Hindu Kalals started calling themselves Ahluwalia after the Sikh General Jassa Singh Ahluwalia. Thanks SH 17:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all Ahluwalia sir name adopted by sardar jassa singh Ahluwalia ,his followers are called Ahluwalia or walia people .They are Sikhs and non sikh both and considered a royal caste in punjab,haryana,delhi,himachal etc.only ramgadhia,saini are the sikh castes come in state obc list.don't try to say Ahluwalia is low caste they were the rulers and founder of kapurthala princely state of punjab. Sunny20000 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that they are low caste: it says (with a reliable source) that they were regarded as such, but successfully achieved a high-caste status.

You are an indian and exactly knows about the caste system of india.In india castes are decided by the state or central government ,ahluwalua is royal caste considerd by the punjab goverment,but you are highlighting low caste word intentionally ,there are many other thing that can be publish in wiki page.Why Don't you put here royal ahluwalias list of kings and sardars here.You are pinching disputed things again and again and trying to degrade our community socially . Sunny20000 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading[edit]

after partition some of non sikh n hindu punjabi caste started using ahluwalia as their last name which created lot of misconception that ahluwalia is a sub caste of khatri which is wrong.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for your contention? - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RomanEmpireXX's edits[edit]

@RomanEmpireXX: Regarding this edit, please explain why you believe the sources are problematic. You mentioned Ganda Singh's book in an edit summary, but that book doesn't oppose the existing sources. Ganda Singh's book mentions a spurious account which traces the ancestry of the Kapurthala dynasty to Krishna, also connecting them to the Yadavas, the Jats and the Rajputs. Ganda Singh notes that this account has been termed as "imaginary", and states that the dynasty is "known as Kalal". utcursch | talk 22:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please keep the information on this page legitimate. The Book by Prof. Ganda Singh on Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia is for reference and not for copy paste. All the imaginary information has been removed from this page.
For Your Information S. Sadho Singh married into Kalal family, he himself was an Ahluwalia not Kalal and according to the Indian Family system the children take forward the father's family name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanEmpireXX (talkcontribs) 05:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@RomanEmpireXX: There is no "copy-paste" from Ganda Singh's book -- not even a single sentence has been quoted verbatim. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "imaginary" information. In Ganda Singh's book, the claim of Ahluwalias' descent from Jaisalmer Rajputs has been termed as imaginary -- and that's the only part you've retained. If you want to remove entire imaginary account of Kapurthala family, feel free to do so, but you have not provided any valid reason for removing the Kalal caste identity of the early Ahluwalias (which is supported, not debunked, by Ganda Singh's book).
As explained in another ref, Ahluwalia was originally used as a last name by Kalals, and only later evolved into a caste / clan / community. There is no contradiction between the sources. If you have any problem with the reliability of the sources, you can drop a note at WP:RSN. utcursch | talk 14:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank You. Competency is required and you need to hear to what other people say.Winged BladesGodric 12:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Utcursch Edit References[edit]

Hi Utcursch.. RomanEmpireXX here..

I have got the book written by Prof. Ganda Singh on Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia at home and have read it, so I can clearly see that the earlier edit done by you was a copy-paste. As mentioned by you earlier about the imaginary claim in the book, it was all removed.

If you read that book clearly, it states S. Sadho Singh was an Ahluwalia who married into the Kalal family, correct and his sons did as well. As per the Indian Family system the children take forward their father's family name. So it's just simple logic, that the name is Ahluwalia only.

Kindly leave the page to legitimate information only. RomanEmpireXX (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@RomanEmpireXX: Please don't lie: Ganda Singh's book is available here for everyone to see. Please link to the page number which contains the content that I "copy-pasted".
On page 1, Ganda Singh states "Although the Ahluwalia dynasty is known as Kalal, the royal House of Kapurthala traces its lineage..." The author then gives an account of this claimed descent. Ganda Singh does not present this as a factual account -- it'd be preposterous for any modern writer to pass off claimed descent from Salibahn etc. as factual. On page 4, Ganda Singh concludes this account with "Sir Lapil Griffin does not accept the theory tracing the origin of this dynasty to Jaisalmer and dismisses it as something imaginary".
Moreover, you have not provided any reason for removal of other references. "Contradictory References" (which, by the way, is not a true claim) is not a reason to remove references. When two sources disagree, we simply state "According to X... and According to Y". This is what the article states (Gian Singh wrote... W. H. McLeod states... etc.). utcursch | talk 18:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Utcursch References- Part 2[edit]

Hi Utcursch.. RomanEmpireXX here again..

I know the book published by Prof. Ganda Singh is available to everyone for reading. All I'm saying is reading the book properly and perceiving the information provided by the book correctly as well.

If you read this book properly, it states S. Sadho Singh was an Ahluwalia who married into the Kalal family, correct and his sons did as well. As per the Indian Family system the children take forward their father's family name. So it's just simple logic, that the name is Ahluwalia only.

I have been editing the information provided by you because it has been incorrect and incomplete from the start. Firstly, relation to some random Dhrubra Sect from Himachal Pradesh. I have been reading the History of our region Punjab from school times. I have come across nothing like that anywhere. All you did there was referring to a book written by author Manjit Ahluwalia about Himachal Pradesh.

Secondly, I informed you about the book by Prof. Ganda Singh on Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and all you have done there is copying the paragraphs from the ancient lineage section of the book and pasting them on Wikipedia. If you believe that information is not correct or as you said Prof. Ganda Singh has written some information provided in the book is not factual, then why putting it here on Wikipedia.

Thirdly, British administrators like Griffin and Mcleod wrote a lot about India which again does not hold any legitimacy. They have just written books so they can earn loyalty money in the later years of their life from publishers.

Mr. Utcursch Sir, you didn't even knew that the Ahluwalia clan was from Punjab REGION, that information was provided by me. Sir I request you please don't provide false information from random books. If you want to read, I have provided you with the name of the book earlier which is for your reading and reference, not be copied and pasted on Wikipedia.

Sitting in Canada and writing things about topics is easy. Please travel the region of Punjab if you get a chance and visit the Princely State of Kapurthala as well and then provide information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanEmpireXX (talkcontribs) 23:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Umm... you are the one who insisted that Ganda Singh's book be referred to (and please stop falsely accusing me of "copying the paragraphs" from the book). The article doesn't cite Griffin -- it cites Ganda Singh's book for his opinion. Mcleod wasn't a British administrator. And you've still not provided a valid reason for your removal of other sources (including those by Punjabi/Sikh authors) from the article. utcursch | talk 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Are the repeated removals such as this part of the same discussion? I sense some off-wiki collaboration or even sockpuppetry going on here. Can someone please explain what is actually wrong with the info that is being removed because I cannot see anything valid to justify removal in what is said above. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Reasoning behind Edits[edit]

Hi Sitush

If you read the page and the information provided from different references, it just holds no logic.

Whats happening here is, people who know the history of Punjab are making the edits because information provided via the edits done by the administrators (with all due respect but sorry to say) is false and baseless.

To me it seems like the administrators here are misusing the extra powers provided to them and just trying here to maintain the page (maintaining their monthly income from Wikipedia) and trying to satisfy their ego by projecting whatever they say is correct.

Firstly Sadhu Singh's father was a zamindar (landlord) from Lahore, he was the owner of jagir (land) which expanded over four villages including Ahloo and the inheritance was passed on to Sadhu Singh. From village name Ahloo, comes the name Ahluwalia which is a very common thing as almost all the clans around the world got their name from the area where they use to live whether they were clans from Asia or Europe.

Sadhu Singh married a Kalal girl, that's the only link with Kalal. Sadhu Singh was an Ahluwalia not Kalal. There is no term like "adopting Ahluwalia Identity."

From here its very simple, in every civilization the children always take forward their father's name.

Secondly Bhati Rajput is a very big clan, and has its descendants settled all along the river Indus and its tributaries. Bhati Rajput has its descendants even living in Pakistan Punjab who are Muslims. All the royal families of Indian Punjab are descendants of the Bhati Rajput Clan which includes royals from Patiala, Kapurthala and Faridkot.

Thirdly Sanskritisation- It is not possible in North Indian states because the caste system here is very strong and there will be riots will something like this happens in North Indian states. That's why there is a concept of reservation deviced by the Government of India.

I request the administrators, just by reading little paragraphs from unreliable books and percepting the information in a wrong way from legitimate books, its affecting the legitimacy of this page.

Its not ganging up and act of vandalism, number of people are trying to convey the message that the information provided on this page is not correct.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingG1001 (talkcontribs) 12:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The content you are removing is reliably sourced -- you have not provided any explanation for why these sources are "unreliable books". Your entire explanation about why it "holds no logic" is your own original research. If your assertions are backed up by any reliable source (what you call "legitimate books"), feel free to add them to the article. By the way, administrators do not get any "monthly income". utcursch | talk 13:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, have you read WP:SOCK? There is something odd going on here and you are likely to be blocked from contributing unless you sort it out. It doesn't matter if you're one person using several accounts or several people collaborating off Wikipedia to force your point of view (eg: coming here because of a note on a caste web forum), it isn't permitted. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Querry Reply[edit]

A good collaboration going on here "Sitush" and "Utcursch". Or are you the same person using different usernames??????. You tell me what is going on with you. Well your prompt reply here clearly suggests you are trying to force your point of view on other people. You are not the custodian of this page and don't act like one.

Firstly The explanation provided by me clearly makes sense but you wont accept it because it hurts your ego as it is proving you wrong. And clearly you don't take constructive criticism well. My explanation is my own work done on ground level whist I visited Punjab. All your so called reliable references are little paragraphs from random books "not your work". Pinching small paragraphs from different books and making an article out of it, this is what you have done here. If I compare your baseless work to the time period and the area of origin of this surname, the article becomes so contradicting and makes no sense.

Please provide a legit reason of you trying to maintain this page. My reason here is to highlight incorrect information. I was reading the previous edits in which you were trying to correlate the Ahluwalia surname with some Dhrubra sect Rajputs. Can you please provide the answer from which little book did you copied that.

Ok, if I take your word that as an administrator you don't get monthly income, then please don't try to act as a volunteer community leader because neither me or tens of other people who are interacting here have asked you to do so.

Secondly You are not the only last remaining intelligent person left on this planet. Talking a lot about WP:SOCK and WP:TW. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia Head Office wont appreciate these kind of bullying and intimidating tactics used by the active and inactive administrators against other people.

Reading the edit history of this page from 2015 there are no major contributions done by you on this page, apart from editing the information provided by other people and projecting it as your own.

Moreover, Its your edit version who speaks about caste system (Sanskritisation), my edit versions are simple and to the point.

Thanks KingG1001 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not participating further until you come up with reliable sources to verify your claims. I do think part of the problem is that you are not reading/comprehending what the article actually says. Calling people names isn't going to get you anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


"All your so called reliable references are little paragraphs from random books "not your work". Pinching small paragraphs from different books and making an article out of it, this is what you have done here."

That is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Otherwise, anyone could write anything here. If I want to publish my own work, I'd have to use a personal website, such as a blog. If I want my work to be cited on Wikipedia, I'd have to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal first.

"I was reading the previous edits in which you were trying to correlate the Ahluwalia surname with some Dhrubra sect Rajputs."

The 'Dhrubra' bit was added by, who cited a book by Manjit Ahluwalia as the source. I only added request for a page number, because I could not find this assertion in the cited book.
The rest of your comments are either irrelevant personal attacks or display a lack of understanding about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please go through Wikipedia:Tutorial if you haven't already done that. Also have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
utcursch | talk 15:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Utcursh, Punjab government considers Ahluwalia community as a royal caste .You intentionally trying to defame our communiy .don't do this again. Thanking you A.S.Ahluwalia Ahluwalia international community Chandigarh .

Sunny20000 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


Thank you.WP:CIR Winged BladesGodric 12:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Utcursch You are an indian as your name reflects and you exactly knows that what is the caste system in india.I want to tell you that you are trying to defame ahluwalia dynasty intentionally because there are number of references claiming the royalness of ahluwalias ,you are not giving any references for kings and sardars of ahluwalia royal are again and again highlighting the word low caste.infact sainis and ramgadhia which are actually low castes in punjab their pages do not show anything related to caste. Indian castes system is being decided by the state or central government.Sikh communities which come in state obc list are saini and ramgadhia communities.Ahluwalia community is considered a royal caste in punjab and morover they are not even kalal because sadoo singh was a jatt sikh who married with a girl of kalal family. There is no mean to put disputed references in wiki page it degrades us socially and defaming our community .I hope you understand the things again and again pinching about caste and particularly disputed matter is not your work ,many other things are there which are actually fact about ahluwalias should be highlighted here please take this matter in your kind consideration otherwise you are forcing us to take the matter in other platforms. Books are written,it doesn't mean they tells the facts actually . Sunny20000 (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that you believe utcursch to be within the jurisdiction of Indian law. That would be a legal threat, and you should already know that you cannot do that sort of thing and edit Wikipedia at the same time. Furthermore, you have yet again provided no reliable source, are continuing to edit war and are completely ignoring WP:NPOV. Note that the latter states that we should show all reliably sourced viewpoints and thus even if you did have sources you could add information from them but not remove the present content - we would have to show both. There is also a hint in your message that you are acting on behalf of a group, which I've already told you on this page is something that you cannot do. I think it is about time you are at least topic banned. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are not you Don't know the caste system in india.Indian state/central governments categorised a number of casts which are considered low or backward castes .These casts gets reservations in various government jobs,education and other government schemes.these castes are considered low and socially backward in our society. Ahluwalia caste is considered high class sikh.Only saini,ramgadhia and majgabi sikh castes are considered low casted in punjab state government gazzet .Please try to understand and investigate your own and Don't post false Sunny20000 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Instead of telling me to try to understand, how about you try to understand. See WP:RS and WP:V. It is that simple. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are doing correcly Why Don't you put the list of rulers of Ahluwalia dynasty .I think your aim is only defaming the Ahluwalia sikh community that is reason you are not putting the truth on the web — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny20000 (talkcontribs) 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you think the Ahluwali are a glorious people but I am going to ask for you to be blocked from contributing unless you are prepared to follow Wikipedia's policies - there seem to be severe issues of competence. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
LOL.This area and it's editors never cease to amaze me!Winged BladesGodric 11:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Haridwar sources[edit]

I have just reverted this. For an introduction to sourcing, WP:Citing sources might be a useful starting point. However, I suspect the photographs of documents etc referred to in that edit summary would be primary sources anyway and probably not acceptable. What we really need are reliable secondary sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)