From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Uttar Pradesh (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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.
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.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 26 January 2013. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!


Lahore has never been conqured by the Rajputs from Mahmud Ghazni. It was the capital of Jaipal and once lost to Mahmood, the only Non Muslims to rule it were Sikhs in the reign of Maharaj Ranjit Singh.

خرم Khurram 16:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Lahore was ruled by Prithviraj Chauhan. Do not twist history.

Shivraj Singh 20:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Prove it my friend through an unbiased historical reference. I lived in that city.

خرم Khurram 21:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed section[edit]

This section doesn't make much sense, but it seems to have some useful content, so someone could add that back in.

They are found in a large area tehsil Chiniot Distrcit Jhang and that whole region in local Punjabi language is called Bhatiore.Their famous vilages are Jaisalwala,Barana,Inayatpur,Kot Ameer,Ghoriwala,Tahtta Umra,Ganja Bhattian,Burani Bhattian, Maru Bhattian,Kot Sultan. TimBentley 03:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Bhati/Bhatti merger[edit]

These seem to be alternate spellings of the same tribe. I've randomly chosen to centralize discussions here. Which spelling would be preferred? It would be nice for someone who knows something about the subject to merge them. TimBentley 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Bhatti is the most widely used spellings and it is what is used by Sir Denzil Ibbetson in his work so I would suggest that we use this.

خرم Khurram 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Google results agree, so I'll change the tags and try to get it merged this evening. TimBentley 15:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bhati and Bhatti are two different tribes in India. It is an insult to keep them under the same name. Please reconsider.


Could you please cite Sir Denzil Ibbetson's work, that you have mentioned on Talk:Bhatti. Bhati/Bhatti are different clans altogether.[1]
Denzil Ibbetson, Panjab Castes, Low Price Publications (2002) ISBN 8175362901
Agree with that. Perhaps you should create another article on Bhatti, that relates to the Punjabi Sikhs and the Jats. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Even this page [2] suggests that Bhattis were Punjabi Rajputs who conquered territories in Pakistan. Bhati Rajputs are originally from Jaiselmer and they are a Chandravanshi clan. Bhattis have their origin from the Bhati clan. Bhattis are generally those who have embraced islam.
Please read [3] also, on Jatland Wiki. (All participating members on this page have been notified) --Andy123(talk) 19:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
(I am going to redirect the article to Bhati, in case there are no objections)

Jawwad Ahmad Bhatti: I think we should not create controversy on spelling of Bhatti or Bhati, the main thing is our main caste that is Rajputs. As we know Rajputs are spread all over Indian, Pakistan and Afghanistan, so it is quite obvious that we have different languages and different ways to articulate the words. I am surprised to read the comments from Mr. Khurram that Lahore was never captured by Rajputs. Our Maharaja Ranjit Singh Bhatti had made Lahore its capital in his reign and he was Rajput and Shivraj Singh is quite right that Lahore was ruled by Prithavi Raj Chuahan. I am also living in Lahore (Mozang). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Page history merge[edit]

I have merged the page histories of Bhatti and Bhati (leaving out revisions of Bhati that are superfluous). The reason for this page history merge is to ensure attribution continues for the user who made the 3 edits to Bhati which were manually merged into Bhatti. The edits in question are:

  • 08:00 5 Nov 05 (UTC)
  • 07:11 27 Oct 05 (UTC)
  • 09:58 26 Oct 05 (UTC)

Although at first glance the page history seems to suggest these were reversions, they were simply edits to a separate article which existed side-by-side with the main one. - Mark 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Pakistan stub[edit]

The Bhati Rajputs are not originally from Pakistan. They originated in an Indian region called Jaisalmer. So, this article does not qualify to solely be a Pakistan stub. The Bhati clan is spread through India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These are the evidences which I have collected over the internet in support of my contentions. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Of these, this link seems to suggest that Bhatti Rajputs have their origin from Bhati Rajputs of Jaisalmer. If that is the case, then we can have another article for them. --Andy123(talk) 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Relationship between Bhatti & Bhati[edit]

Bhati (Hindi: भाटी, is a Rajput caste and is one of the largest tribes among Rajputs. In the Punjabi language Bhatis came to be known as BhattiRajputs, it was simply the Punjabi way of pronouncing Bhati, just like Punjabis pronounced "Gadi"(Hindi word for "Cart", now also used for "Car" or even "Train") as "Gaddi".

Atulsnischal 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have done some cleanup and have not distinguished between Bhati and Bhatti in my edits, because I don't know which is correct. I may have changed some spellings inappropriately, out of my lack of knowledge. All corrections and clarifications are welcome. Zariane (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear User, please dont Vandalise Bhati Page[edit]

  • Please dont Vandalise Bhati Page

Atulsnischal 19:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Correct spelling is (((BHATTI)) there should not be any aurgument about that {BILAL BHATTI} —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be improved[edit]

There is no references for the majority of this work (which I dont understand because it's so easily available). Also the legend needs to be clarified as legend and the facts as the facts.

The article is rife with opinions and almost offensive generalisations. Sikhs are Sikhs, they are not security guards of the Hindus or anything silly like that.

Sikhs converted because of their Love of the Guru Granth Sahib ji, their loyalty and devotion to the respective Guru's. It is highly offensive to me and any other Sikh, to be told by someone (who obviously has no idea) that we became Sikh because the Hindus needed security. Why do you say that? Were they incapable of fighting these so called muslim marauders while they were still Hindu? Dont be ridiculous. And dont put up your nationalist propoganda on here.

Bhati from Bhatakna - this is a ridiculous point. You state that they are called Bhati because it is derived from the Sanskrit word Bhatakna (wanderer). Where the hell did you get this from? Please show me the details of the book and it's full details. If you dont, then this is clearly lies, and you are bad naming the Bhatti nation and I will take this up with the wikipedia authorities. No proof, no claim please.

Have done some clear up work. Please feel free to add more. I will get some more info and add as I get some time.

Why has soooo much information been removed from the article, why has Shal Bahan been removed from the article? Was it deemed to be made up? Also there has seemed to be a lot of anti-Islamic input by some of the editors in previous revisions. Another problem seems that very little content in the article seems to be verified. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC))


Is the group described in this article the same as the topic of Bhatia (caste)? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Bhatias claim descent from Bhatis but they are a class of merchants allied with Khatris and Aroras and intermarry with them. It is primarily a business coummunity though their claim of Bhati ancestry may be true. Some descendants of Bhatis are also found among Jats, Rajput Malis, Arains, etc.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Could someone please explain what exactly is going on with the people who keep edit warring over the inclusion of "Gujjars" in this article? AtticusX (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ans. Bhati is one cast of Gujjars also and historically Gujjars are from Rajasthan and a clan of Rajputs so Gujjar-Bhati are also indirectly same as Rajput-Bhati.
OK, thanks for explaining your side.
On a separate note, please learn how wikilinks work so I don't have to keep cleaning up the same mistake on this page every time this edit war goes through another cycle. Instead of writing:
[[Rajputs or Gujjars]]
you should write:
[[Rajputs]] or [[Gujjars]]
The former produces an unnecessary redlink - "Rajputs or Gujjars" - while the latter creates two working links - "Rajputs or Gujjars". Obviously there is not an article titled "Rajputs or Gujjars". They are two separate articles and so should be linked separately. You can find more information about proper linking technique at Help:Link.
Additionally, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages like this using four tildes: ~~~~ More info is at WP:SIGN. Thanks. AtticusX (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, another relevant guideline regarding when to link is at WP:REPEATLINK: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item." AtticusX (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unverified content[edit]

Sorry, but unverified content must be removed (after a reasonable time) in terms of what is required by Wikipedia. If it has not been published by a reliable source, it does NOT belong here. For instance, is NOT a reliable source. It gets its purported info from Wikipedia and thus is a circular (inadmissible) source. Please stop using this article as a repository for unsupported original research, images of unverified relevance, self-promotion and other inappropriate content. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Havelis of Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Havelis of Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yadav Confusion?[edit]

Yadav is a clan of Yadava (descendants of Yadu). These clans are also descendants of Yadava like Saini, Bhati, Jadeja etc. --¢ℓαяк (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what i got an answer on Yadava talk page when i asked if ahirs are not yadavs then why indian govt recognises them as yadavs and if saini , bhati and Jadeja are yadavs then why not in present and in history they used used yadav to represent themselves or used as last name .

If yadavs are shudras then Bhati, jadeja and saini should be shudras too?Raosaab7 (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Bhati[edit]

Respected Sir Please dont take it otherwise. I really respect you for your wiki contributions. Still, if u permit then may i ask the reason for removal of contents on the article just because of yadava word. where as other caste related words like Jat, Gurjar etc. are present there. One more thing I would like to add what i have seen with my own eyes... The fort of Jaisalmer and all text related to Bhatis, the word Yadava is present there. Indian History too have such mentions everywhere. Sorry,I am not questioning you, just curious to know if there is any specific reason. Actually, I see all the caste related pages and in case of almost every caste i find that Indian Social history is misrepresented at most of the places. Your response in this regard will certainly be a matter of emmense pleasure for me. Regards and wishes Mahensingha (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to read up on the Bhati but it gets very confusing due to ambiguities with Bahti etc. The sources that you added were also confusing. I've little doubt that Jaisalmer was controlled by a family known as Bhati but your sources were vague, as is typical for the name: one of them even referred to the family as Yadav Bhati Rajputs, which makes things even more confusing because Yadavs are a different group again and, IIRC, are not considered to be Rajput. And Yadava is treated as different from Yadav in many sources, so there is yet another problem.
The whole thing is an unfortunate mess &, as you say, it also apparently involves Jats and Gurjars. It is no-one's fault that this is so but quite how we resolve it is beyond me at the moment. It is likely to need some intensive research of the type that for which I've simply not been able to find time. Any suggestions would be welcome but they'd probably be better given on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The Rajput stands at top in the Indian caste hierachy and Yadav or Yadava at a middle position at present. So its nothing but Indian Caste mentality that the lower order group is never allowed to upgradeand will be opposed by all the (heigher/lower) categories. On the other hand giving refernces of Ancient History and the landlordship they own, their present political influence makes grounds for all the Yadavs that they claim their superiority even over the Rajputs or even more than the truth. Even the text and literature in this regard is also influenced by such mentality of the writers. what is written depends upon caste group of the writer (upper, middle or lower). The same goes with the foreign writers who could have easily been misguided as they were not a part of this complex social structure and for they based their accounts on interaction with local people/local literature. Now this conflicting material is a matter of great confusion for a neutral person. The true story is still hidden.
It is proved that in mythology Yadavs are part of Kshatriya category. one branch of them which is closely related to them is Vaishya also. so "Confusion". Evidences exist that due to fear of Parsuram, the brahmin warrior, few kshatriyas were destroyed (the claim is all are destroyed), few of them dropped their arms and took to agriculture and herding and Yadavs were one of them. Later on they again became powerful in some areas and established their kingdoms also and regained their status. Then comes the theory of Sanskritisation or upward caste mobility. Now the question arises that if they regained their status then why upgradation was needed. So, nothing but all "confusion". Still History suggests that they were and are a caste of historical importance. My intention is not to blame any one here but it is very much possible that facts may be moulded or manipulated even on Wikipedia also as many of the editors who are Indians, too belong to either of the categories "Yadavs" or "Anti Yadavs". And it is also possible that whose number is bigger became winner.
Related to this Article Bhati, I can say that you will find at all the places at Jaisalmer Fort and nearby histirical buildings Bhatis are everywhere mentioned as "Yadav" or "Yadav Bhati" as the word Bhati comes after their ancestor named Bhati.the same goes with the many literary evidences too, few of which I mentioned earlier also. At many places I found that " Few of the Yadavs also called Abhiras were merged with Yadav Rajputs". The Bhatis till date feel proud in saying that they are Yadav kulbhushan and Lord Krishna is their ancestor. They are listed almost everywhere among the Rajputs of Rajputana. They are integral part of Rajput community.I therefore humbly request all editors that the articles on wikipedia must be factual. otherwise this will also prove to become a confusing source of information like is the case of literary indian historical sources. its my pleasure if you share your views on these topics. thanx and regards. Mahensingha (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Sir, I am afraid to say that the contents removed were not original research and were suitably cited also. Any way I have no complaints. I just tried to explore more facts. so thanx for sparing time for me. Mahensingha (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Submitted below are few more sources, if it serves the purpose Mahensingha (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I've reverted a number of recent changes, because the sources used were not acceptable as reliable sources (as per WP:RS). One ( looks like a personal site/blog, and the other ( is a caste/tribe advocacy site. We need reliable independent sources, which write about Bhati from an independent viewpoint - ideally academic/historical sources. Sources that are Bhati writing about themselves are not suitable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit tag dated May, 2009?[edit]

How do we now have a copy edit tag dated May, 2009? It only recently appeared. Perhaps it should be dated September, 2012, if copy editing is now being requested. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The tag may have reappeared as the result of a reversion; I don't know why (or if) it was removed in the first place, since it's still in need of copyediting. However, the article is way too unstable to make an attempt at a copyedit anything but an exercise in futility at this time. All the best, Miniapolis 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section heading[edit]

Tod,s Annals are the best source for Bhati history.Tod traces the Bhati history from Brahmaji,Som Indu or chanderji, Yaduji,Krishnaji, Raja salvahanji of Sialkot, Raja Bhatiji of Sialkot,Rawal Jaisalji of Jaisalmer to the present.Raja Rislau, Puran Bhagat and dulla Bhati are famous folk heroes of Punjab.The stories of their valour are still remembered by the people of Punjab. (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

James Tod is not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just reverted another attempt to re-add this same (or similarly unsourced/poorly sourced info), and requested page protection. Feel free to discuss individual details here, but WIkipedia is not a caste-glorification site where you can write things that you have been taught or believe; rather, we require all information to be verified in reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


An anon keeps adding Gujjars to the opening sentence, claiming the Bhatis to be associated with that community as well as with Rajputs and Jats. I have no access to the Deshraj book that has long been cited for that sentence but note that the book is about Jats and that we have another (poor) source saying that they are Rajput. I consider it unlikely that Deshraj mentions the Gujjars in a book detailing the Jats and I vaguely recall a conversation at WT:INB that suggested Deshraj is in any event not reliable, although he is widely-cited on our caste articles.

If you want to add Gujjars to the article then you will need to either (a) provide a reliable source or (b) provide a copy of the relevant page from Deshraj that can be considered by other contributors. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

this article is an insult to millions of bhati rajputs living in the world. In Indian epigraphy: a guide to the inscriptions in sanskrit, prakrit and other indo-aryan languages by Richard Salomon on page 189 bhatika samvat or bhatika era is mentioned.bhatika era was started in 623a.d. 624a.d. or 625a.d. Sharma thinks that it genuinely represents the era of bhati rajput clan. since maharaja bhati rao is the founder of bhati rajput clan, the bhati rulers of jaisalmer used the bhatika samvat or bhatika era in the honour of their ancestor.the eras are always started by or in the name of some great historical personalities.accordingly to bhatika samvat/era, the bhati rajput clan came into existence in 623/624 or 625a.d. In this article the jaisalmer castle,s or golden fort,s picture should be used rather than lahore,s bhati gate.Rajbaz (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Sitush. talk, there is no insult to any one, one should not discuss such things on wiki. Remember "caste/religion is just an accident for which you need not to be sorry nor be proud off". I wrote this because i was like you some time before. Please don't get into general discussions. Contribute positively without being biased. Kirtimaansyal (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

i disagree with you sir. but there is nothing in the article about bhati rajput history. the article is empty.bhati rajputs have a glorious history. you should write something in the article and then give your personal views.Rajbaz (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sitush i disagree with his book"serving empire,serving nation:james todd and rajputs 0f rajasthan" jason freitag says that before todd depictions of rajputs by europeans lacked depth and were incomplete.but Todd studied the rajput history in depth and detail.therefore Todd is a reliable source.there are some inaccuracies but you cannot through the child away with the bucket.Think about it.Rajbaz (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@sitush Jason freitag wrongly thinks that Todd had turned the Rajputs into Indian heroes.This is wrong. Before Todd Rajputs were already heroes in the eyes of Indian masses. Prithviraj rasso was written by an Indian poet Chandbardai before Todd ever set foot in India. todd studied the Rajput history in depth and detail so, his depictions of Rajputs are complete and thios makes him a reliable source.Rajbaz (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@sitush Jason freitag wrongly thinks that Todd had turned the Rajputs into Indian heroes.This is wrong. Before Todd Rajputs were already heroes in the eyes of Indian masses. Prithviraj rasso was written by an Indian poet Chandbardai before Todd ever set foot in India. todd studied the Rajput history in depth and detail so, his depictions of Rajputs are complete and thios makes him a reliable source.Rajbaz (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC) @@@@sitush@@@ i think you are jealous to word gujjar , i have seen many times in many pages , listion bhati are gurjars come to noida and you will found they are king of noida , and bhatinda fort was also founded by bhati gurjars , and one thing you should know that around hundreds of gurjar clans started calling them rajput due to muslims and british, if you wants to know which which clans were they then ad me on fb my id is kg.motsar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kggochar (talkcontribs) 16:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC) 

Bhati rajputs are real bhatis.others are not real bhatis.Rajbaz (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@kggochar why should i be jealous of anyone. there are bhati rajputs bhati jatts bhati gujjars bhati nais bhati kumhars bhati tarkhans. who do you are the original bhatis. of course bhati rajputs are original bhatis. others are either mixed or they have adopted the bhati surname. read website. sidhu brar jatts admit that they are partly bhati rajputs. it says that bhatinda was ruled by a bhati rajput called khiva. raja khiva did not have a son from his rajput wives. but raja khiva had a son called sidhu from his jatt wife. sidhu and his descendants married in his mothers jatt caste and became sidhu jatts. in it says that some sidhus married dalit women and children became sidhu dalit. some sidhus married nai women and children were sidhu nais. similarly some bhati rajputs married in other castes and children fell in their mothers caste. there is nothing to be ashamed of it. at the end of the day we are all human beings. after akbar all mughal emperors had rajput mothers. and the mughals felt proud of it. The mughals were very big kings and emperors but they felt honoured to marry women of small rajput states. The mughals could have married iranian and arabian princesses but they did not. I think some gujjars may have adopted rajput surnames like bhati and chauhan in order to escape persecution from british authorities during the mutiny of 1857. An author b.s.nijjar says that in punjab some other castes adopted rajput surnames in order to enlist in british indian army.Rajbaz (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources on Bhati[edit]

All the Respectable editors are requested to go through the following sources and edit the page as is found appropriate. I fear to edit the page, because every time it is reverted by the experienced editors for some or other genuine or valid reasons . Being new on wiki, I find no place as I am less technical. But the fact is present before everyone that the article has a lot of contents on its Talk Page and has just few or no information on actual Article page. So, I request drawing attention of all to please develop the article and make it informative.

Web Resources:- Refer Notes - Founding the city Section

and many more...Please note the contents of web pages cant be trustworthy or reliable as per wiki policies but why everywhere the same story is written, if Bhati Rajputs are not chndravanshi or yaduvanshi (Not an Original Research). out of the above cited book which are all written after 1900 A.D., may something qualify WP:RS --Mahensingha 17:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Those are almost entirely crap sources. You have also been searching far too narrowly, possibly to push a Yadav POV. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Its my request please do not misunderstand. I always keeps myself far away from all these controversial matters. I am simply a knowledge seeker and honest contributor and if i am not wrong, I have several times, humbly requested guidance from you as well the others whomsoever I came into contact. I Know I am not perfect, so What ever comes to my vision I simply forward it to the experts, be it you. and further you must agree that I become fully satisfied with all the decisions and reverts and have never given any reaction. Is it wrong to seek advice? I understand well that none of my edits are permanent, it is further subjected to verification. Still, If you find me doing anything wrong, Please do intimate. But, I expect a better communication just like your marvelous work on wiki. I am not here to give anybody a competition or something like that. Hoping for a better discussion and guidance. Thanks and regards.--Mahensingha 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be better to search for "bhati". When I've tried that in the past, it has tended to produce nothing of great note. I'm afraid that this article barely passed our notability requirements but I do live in hope that it can be improved. I have recently obtained access to a paywalled set of sources and will be trawling through those. I've also bought a lot more books of late but haven't yet read them all. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The following Source prominently and significantly mentioned in Article Rajput may give you some clue about bhatti on page 25, 26- - The Rajputs of Rajputana: A Glimpse of Medieval Rajasthan By M. S. Naravane
I've had doubts about M. S. Naravane, who wrote that book. Mainly because he was in fact an officer in the Indian Air Force and merely an amateur historian in retirement. Eg: see this. We might need to take it to WT:INB or WP:RSN for a reliability assessment. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Its OK. Definitely, something better will come out, meanwhile, Whatever comes to my notice i do submit here-

Pastoral Nomadism in Arid Zones of India: Socio-demographic & Ecological Aspects By R. R. Prasad, Page-29
Discover India by Rail By Sandeep Silas Page-233

Bhati as Yaduvanshi/Yadav/Krishnavanshi/Vrishnivanshi[edit]

Dear User:Sitush, Projecting below few more sources about the claimed origin of Bhati Rajputs. Though many of them may not be much reliable ,as mentioned earlier by me and other editors on the same claim, but recurrence of the same fact in multiple sources proves that the claim has existed.

A thousand sources can say it. If the 1000 sources are not reliable, it isn't going in. I've no idea about a lot of the sources that you mention above - they haven't been raised before, as far as I know. There is certainly no dispute that there are/were Bhati Rajputs and it is only the Jat and Gurjar pov-pushers here who seem to have a problem with it. The three groups as a whole - Rajput, Gurjar and Jat - are a damn nuisance across a wide range of caste articles, importing into Wikipedia the inter-communal bickering/jealousy etc that they conduct outside Wikipedia. It needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with you on your above statement and view. If you can recall then on the same talk page I addressed the Indian social situation in detail. You have very correctly recognized that in India most of the people take the caste related issues more sensitively than what it should actually be. I have continuously been telling each and everyone, but I am yet awaiting for the factual accuracy of the contents on wikipedia. The consensus, simply mean the group who can gather the number power of editors and the facts can be moulded. Anyway, your kind gesture to my opinion gave me relief. Thanks.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@sitush the user is not debating about the existence of Bhati Jats and Gurjar. He is just asking you to add the ancestry claimed by yaduvanshi Bhati rajputs to the article. wiki should be a secular platform free for everyone. Being a moderate contributor you should paste contemprory information also. @Mahensingha ji i am constantly observing your partial and fake ahir references please refrain from vandalisation (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Maharawals of jaisalmer[edit]

The Maharawals of Jaisalmer were considered as the head of the Bhatti clan. This should be added in the article. Divyraj (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


BHATI RAJPUTS are descendants of Yadu ( not to be confused with ahirs). The tribe claims descendancy from lord shree krishna and originated from jadaun tribe. Pasting a link from Jaisalmer State Gazetteer in which references from findings of TOD and Cunnigham are also given. Please add the same.. (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

James Tod and Cunningham are not reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In kuldhara village in jaisalmer two inscriptions have been found mentioning bhatika samvat. According to these two inscriptions bhatika samvat started in 623 a.d. You can read about kuldhara village online. Bhati king was yaduvanshi rajput and ancestor of bhati rajputs. Bhati samvat should be mentioned in this article. Some other inscriptions have also beem foumd that mention bhatika samvat. If you type Bhatika samvat on google you can read about Bhatika samvat inscriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbaz (talkcontribs) 14:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

People from other lower caste communities calling themselves Bhati[edit]

"In some parts of modern Pakistan, especially in the Northern and Central Punjab, low-caste doms (or Mirasi singers/dancers) now also call themselves 'Bhattis'; a fact deeply resented by the authentic Bhatti Rajputs."

@User:Sitush for this particular edit. The source for above contents is not verifiable online and no quotation is provided still I don't understand what is the reason that you want to keep it. For almost all the castes Higher to middle in Rank, you will always find some lower castes imitating them. Shall we treat both in the same way. Why have you not redirected the contents on the pages Dom or Mirasi who say that they are Bhatti Rajput. You have been very careful while choosing sources and contents particularly for this article then What happened now. Your edit summary says that even you could not verify or find the source actually. And yes, this is not disambiguation page. I think its better if you create one and place the things on right place. Regards.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Too long hat note[edit]

It is now a too heavy hat note consisting of multiple links. In my view a suitable disambiguation page must be considered. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 22:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is frod site[edit]

Because no girl married from tug lak Rajputniteshbhati (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rajputniteshbhati: I believe that assertion is cited by source no.8. Can you show us a reliable source which tells the contrary? My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 08:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)