Talk:Janjua/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Citation about use of force in Meo and Khanzada conversion to Islam

"I have been disappointed in not finding any mention of Mewat during the long reign of Firoz Shah himself, which covers the very period when the mass of the people of Mewat, both Khanzadahs and Meos, are said to have become Musalmans. That these conversions were not unattended with persecution we may gather from the following accounts written by Firoz himself of the way in which he suppressed the idol-worship of the Hindus in three different places...."

Source: Report of a Tour in Eastern Rajputana in 1882-83 By Alexander Cunningham, pp14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by History Sleuth (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no mention here of Janjua at all...

Citation about Tomar/Janjua bloodlines among Meos and Khanzadas

Tomars as part of Meos. Meo of Tungar clans claim descent from Pandavas. Meos are mixtures of Jadons, Tomars (Janjuas), Kachchwahas and aboriginal Meena tribes.

This is the case with the Meos, but not the Khanzadahs. Also this proves that the Meo group being mixed, would indicate that Meo is a group designation rather than a particular clan within it.

"....In fact nearly one-half of their chief clans, or five pals out of twelve, claim descent from Jadon ancestors. The following list gives the names of their alleged progenitors. — Jadon clans . . I. Chhirkilat. 2. Dalat. 3. Demrot. 4. Nai. 5. Pundelot.

Tomar clans . . 1. Balot. 2. Darwar. 3. Kalesa. 4. Lundavat. 5. Rattawat.

...."

Source: Report of a Tour in Eastern Rajputana in 1882-83 By Alexander Cunningham, pp23

Are Tomars and Janjuas not connected ? Abu Fazl cannot be dismissed that easily.

This is AGAIN based on an obscure reference from an ill researched source i.e. that Abu Fazl made a fleeting mention of a clan with the title Khanzada who were Janjua in descent. Khanzada title (literal translation = "Raja Putra") and Meo title is also claimed by majority Jadon Yaduvanshis also, which ofcourse Janjuas are not. Now Im sure you're intelligent enough not to generalise Janjuas with Yadus now lol. The above points actually confirm that not all Khanzadas are Pandava, with some Meos stating Rama (Suryavanshi) descent, some stating Krishna (Yaduvanshi) descent. Lets not go there.....

Im actually quite interested to explore the Tomar connection, my own clan's oral history states that a Raja Dhilli/Dalip founded and established Delhi etc too. (interestingly, the Ghuman's who are acknowledged by my clan as an off shoot, also claim descent from Raja Dalip too, so there is a 3rd party, with a seperated history from Janjua for almost 800 years who states the same thing) so Im a step ahead of you here, but am interested in finding some further citable connections re this. I know some Tomar Jagas also have the info re where my branch seperated from them. OR alternatively, it's possible that the Janjua was the original branch, and Tomars were the offshoot? I say this because the Khanzadahs (recorded by Abu Fazl) should naturally have mentioned Tomar connection also, but have actually gone further and alleged Janjua heritage to Abul Fazl. Hence if Janjua was a group that was much older patriarchally to have established so many clans in other seats, then the above point may not be so untenable.

BTW, I have no interest in linking Janjuas with Yaduvanshis other than purely scholarly interest in studying the failure of intra-Chandravanshi Rajput relations and alliances in their inablity to have formed a common front under a strong Rajput king to fight Turk invaders. The relationship of Kuru and Yadava clans are too old and too well attested in Hindu texts to merit any discussion.

Thats fine, but although Pandavas were known as Chandravanshis, they were actually Brahmin blood descendants of Rishi Ved Vyas (descendant of Rishi Vasistha, the teacher of Lord Ram), so weren't actually Chandravanshi Kuru blood at all (see the levirate of the Kuru princes by Rishi Vyasa), though they were allied with many tribes. Re their linkage to Yadus, well beyond the mythological Mahabharata texts, there's no substantive proof for this alliance in any of the attested historical ages i.e. Gupta eras, Sultanate eras, even to the current day. I looked into what you're looking into now, and realised fairly early on that there wasn't really a feeling of nationalism or general unity amongst warrior clans since vedic eras, no matter which invaders came, be it the Scythians, Huns, Mongols, Aryans, Greeks, or indeed the British. Each seperate kingdom was busy being antagonised by it's neighbours, and Rajputs naturally being a warring faction, would have much internal dissensions, let alone external ones. Every Rajput family I know has major dissensions amongst themselves even to this day (regardless of faith or geographic international locations lol). But good luck with it anyway.

FYI, RSS's head , Rajinder Singh, is perhaps your kinsman. He is a Tomar Rajput. Send him a message and see how he responds regarding your claim of representing Arjuna's lineal and spiritual heritage and being a Muslim Janjua. Just kidding :-)

Inshallah, one day I might meet him, lol. All tribes have abysmal members also. I have met some RSS fellows, but they tend to be haters, rather than constructive social workers as they pathetically claim to be. Its ok, because we Muslim Rajputs have some RSS equivalents too, so nature does restore balance, bless her.

I will give you son-in-law citation later. I can't locate it at the moment but I am pretty sure I saw that in one of Cunningham's works.

I would be interested in this, as I have heard of the son in law saga before too (though it does appear untenable and have NEVER heard of the father in law being a Yadu etc), but no clear written English work on the matter. So, whence found, feel free to leave me a message.

Last point. Guru Nanak was not hostile to Islam but he did not support conversion of Hindus to Islam. The central objectve of Sikhism was to prevent conversions to Islam by emphasizing the superior aspects of Indian spirituality. If Sikh Gurus were at all impressed with Islam, they would have converted themselves but instead they built armies to resist aggressive Islamic proselytization.

Talk later.--History Sleuth (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Raja Saheb, I must say that despite disagreeing with you I have come to like you. Take full pride in your Janjua ancestry. Someday you will see light again and return to Dharma of your ancestors. I will not edit this article without your permission out of courtesy though I feel greatly tempted to do so to present a Sikh/Hindu perspective of history which you have entirely suppressed in the article. Of course, both of us are biased from each other's standpoint and truth is somewere in the middle of the positions we have taken. I have to confess when I see a Muslim Rajput, my soul cries out. A part of me wants to embrace him but another part of me is bitterly angry at him in having forsaken something that was far greater than what he got in the bargain. I know you won't agree but let us agree to disagree again. Best wishes.--History Sleuth (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

History Sleuth, I understand what you are saying and thanks for the compliment. But What I, as a Sufi Muslim (believe me, I am not a Mullah fan, nor have any time for any extremists of that nature) believe that my clan gained, gave us an amazing treasure that boldly enriched my people. I dont expect you to understand this either. We have common ground and I'd rather appreciate that, than argue the extremities that some sections of my extended religious community have done (which were both deplorable and un Islamic) and nothing to do with me. I dont hold you responsible for the atrocities done to Muslims, and I dont expect to be held responsible for vice versa, thats all.

What I meant above re the Guru's aspect, was that they had a deep respect for Islam which is undeniable, and YES they hated the forced conversions, but they appreciated that Islam was free of this blame. Many of this tyrant rulers persecuted even Sufi missionaries, so we got it on both sides! My family has much written parchments, relics, dating back centuries and some almost 2,000 years old, and whatever the reasons for any clans conversion, they are vehemently loyal and staunch Muslims today who don't really care for their ancestors actions, which morally and Islamically, we are told we are NOT responsible, nor guilty for. They appreciate the beautiful spirituality of both faiths, which no Yogi/Rishi or Sufi Dervish/Faqir deny either, as both have always been highly respectful of the other. To say that a Sikh's main basis is anti Islamism, is very narrow minded and rather insulting to their mission of unity with the Almighty and the reformation of one's inner self. I have integrated much of what you have stated into the article anyway, so believe me, there is no enmity of propoganda etc on my part, so I take issue when you say I have suppressed Hindu Janjua ancestry (especially since I have been looking for citable evidence of them to integrate into the article for a long time, hence my request for extra info?). Either way, re my above points, I would be interested ALWAYS to learn more and would appreciate constructive non biased (if possible) info about my clan and it's potential extended conections also.--~Raja~ (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Jizya and financial incentive as reason for Rajput conversion to Islam

Raja Saheb,

Don't tell people that converted Janjuas were impervious to financial incentives and did not also convert to Islam to escape Jizya:

Can you cite where this was stated by me? I DID however request proof for this assertion that they converted to escape fiscal exactions, for which I am STILL waiting...

Here is a reference from Firoze Shah Tughlak's autobiography . See Elliot's Muhammadan Historians, Vol. III, p. 386 which contains the following account (and this is not the only one):

" I encouraged my infidel subjects to embrace the religion of the Prophet, and proclaimed that every one who repeated the creed and became a Musalman should be exempt from the Jezia, or poll tax. Information of this came to the ears of the people, and great numbers of Hindus presented themselves and were admitted to the honour of Islam. Thus they came forward day by day from every quarter, and, adopting the faith, were exonerated from the Jezia, and were favoured with presents and honours."

--History Sleuth (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How ridiculous, this nowhere mentions Rajputs neither does the word Janjua occur? Can you show me where the word Rajput or Janjua occurs here? Thats a poor reference in my opinion to your cause...Please see below re the intricacies of your Jazia tax etc--~Raja~ (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Compulsion as reason for Mewati conversion to Islam

Sorry, Raja Saheb, if I seem to be raining on your parade again with these citations::-) But you beat me to it. Given below is Cunnhingham's commentary whom you cannot excuse of being a "Hindu extremist".

You mean accuse, not EXCUSE.

yes, I misspelt

The following commentary of Cunningham is about the Khanzadas of Mewat who included converted Janjua as well as Jadon Rajputs.

The former took the name of Bahadur Khan and held Sarhata (only 4 miles to the east of Tejara), while the latter took the name of Chajju Khan, and obtained Jhirka. From these two brothers are descended all the families who lay claim to the title of Khanzadah. Why they became Muhammadans has not been recorded. It is a common belief that they changed their religion to save their lives ; and knowing the plundering habits of the Mewatis and their general turbulence, the belief is perhaps well founded. I think, however, that the two brothers may have embraced the Muhammadan religion for the purpose of regaining their estates of Sarhata and Jhirka, which had been annexed to Delhi by Feroz Tughlak.

Source: See "Report of a Tour in Eastern Rajputana in 1882-83 By Alexander Cunningham, pp11, Published by Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, 1885, Original from Oxford University

" ....the Khanzadahs were chiefly converted Janjuha Rajputs."

Source: Blochmann's Ain-i-Akbari, p. 334--History Sleuth (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ain i Akbari does indeed mention that the Khanzadahs were alledgedly converted Janjuahs, but one finds NO other source on either the Janjua side confirming this, nor on there side? Furthermore, the Meos include many Yaduvanshis, which ofcourse Janjuas have never claimed to be. A good attempt, albeit a poorly proven one yet again ;-)

Raja Saheb, thanks for spirited responses but I think Janjua connection with Meos is too well documented to even need references. Janjua king had taken over Mathura because Yaduvanshi king did not have male heir and he gave the kingdom to his Janjua son-in-law. The area around Delhi had once large Hindu Janjua concentration. When Ghazni attacked Mathura, a Janjua king closely related to Yaduvanshi rajputs was in charge. Janjuas and Yaduvanshis of that era were too closely allied and related not to have shared common bloodlines and historical impacts. So Abu Fazl is not off the mark when he comments that Meos have Janjuas in them too. Yaduvanshis and Janjuas of that time and region were too closely related to be entirely distinct from each other. Their mutual alliance and kinship date saveral centuries before the Turk invasion. So you cannot dismiss Abu Fazl that easily. Yes, the conversion under duress argument will apply to Yaduvanshis as well.

And yet strangely there exists no proof beyond the Abul Fazl's small mention, neither on the UP texts, neither Punjabi texts, leaving Ain i Akbari to be the only proof. I openly request you, if it is SO well documented, please provide evidence beyond one obscure Ain reference? I dont know why you keep trying to relate to Janjuas (it's almost comedic) but can you provide evidence re the above? I would be most interested to know the Yaduvanshi link of this father in law saga? Were there no other Yaduvanshi's left that the father in law gave an entire kingdom to his son in law? It could have happened, but please, without citations, such assertions don't hold.

I have to run now. Just last comment about Guru Nanak. I did not deliberately provide wrong translation but had done the copy paste in haste. I think you are smart enough to know that the verses holds full relevance and meaning with regard to Sikh perception of Babar, even though Arun Shorie ( a journalist of some note in India) mistranslated the word Khurasan. The mistranslation of Khurasan is a red herring you are using to deny the Sikh perception of invasion of rule of Babar. It is not a propaganda but a living artifact of Sikh religion, something that gets recited in all Sikh gurudwaras almost every day. No Sikh will see any pride in having been Babar's ally. The Patiala Sikhs are taunted to this day for having allied with Abadali.

Nope, you are punjabi speaker yourself I assume? Forget Shorie, why would you read that reference and not know immediately in the 1st line is falsely misleading? I am well aware of the Babar vani, but thats a subjective issue with no relevance to the article. Re Patiala Sikhs, sorry but it's history :-)

Please read below. I am in no way suggesting that anyone converted purely for faith reasons, but you seem hell bent on proving that fiscal exactions are the only reason. Meos of UP etc are neither mentioned here nor part of this article, i.e. irrelevant. But ironically the Sikh Janjuas who you menion here inferring to "represent" them, well strangely enough, other than Babar being mentioned once in the holy scripture, it actually states numerous other references of Allah. Infact, one part of the granth contains the reference;

“ Allah is the unseen, inscrutable, inaccessible, omnipotent (Qadir) and bounteous (Karim) creator. The entire world is subject to coming and going. The mericful (Rahim) Lord alone is permanent (1st - 64/1/219)....To be called a Muslim is difficult....first he ought to deem sweet the religion of the Lord's devotees....Becoming a true disciple of the faith of the Prophet, let him put aside the illusion of death...therefore is he is merciful to all sentinent beings, O Nanak, then alone shall he be called a Musalman (1st - 141/1/468)....My immaculate Lord (Pak Allah) knows thy condition (5th - 723/2/2360-1).....May I not forget Allah who is my mind, my soul and my very life (5th- 1138/7/3743-4) ” — Direct translations of Guru Granth Sahib

So yes, no Sikh may have pride in Babbar, but every scripture reading Sikh must certainly have love the above references. Nice try though....

Yes, there were genuine conversions of faith either way too but that is not the entire picture. Your article makes no mention of Jizya and forced conversons which is rather absurd. From another group's perception Hindu Janjuas had "valiantly" fought islam until the organized might of Islam made them succumb to Turk power and the real Janjua heroes were the ones who resisted Islam. This is another way of looking at it, coming from a Hindu angle (biased of couse). Your narrative goes as if Janjuas woke up peacefully to be Muslim one day after a Nirvana moment. It did not happen that way. The reasons were vert complex and often ver tragic and I think you can afford to do more justice with that theme....cheers...bye for now!

Because there exists no record which states that the Janjua were forced to convert by the sword. Infact, there exists no record that the Hindu Janjuas ever fought a campaign against Islam, whence many of them infact peacefully ruled their minorities in there kingdoms. It is strange that the RSS theories (which you are expressing, that cannot be denied) are always replacing the invaders names with Islam. Sadly simplistic, biased, prejudiced and highly unencyclopedic. If these Muslims were SO evil, then why did Guru Nanak memorise their Qur'an? Why journey to Mecca? Why even mention that the Muslim has one eye open compared to the Hindu whos eyes are shut (his words not mine), why would a Muslim saint Mian Mir lay the first brick of the Golden Temples Mazhar? Why would Ranjit Singh use the advice of Faqir Azizuddin? Why did even Guru Gobind Singh state Allah many times in the Granth as his Lord?

Infact let's Guru Nanak Sahib even mentioned that "Says Nanak, the Guru has rid me of my doubt. The Muslim God and the Hindus' transcendent Lord are one and the same thing" which leaves aside the argument that the Mughals represented Islam in the eyes of Sikhism. Im sorry, to now rain on YOUR parade, but its facts....

Either way, the article DOES NOT justify this Muslim Rajput tribe, it DESCRIBES them through cited evidence. This is NOT forum to discuss your wild biased theories either.--~Raja~ (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Further info

The article has extensive info regarding Muslim Janjua Rajputs, because most citable and referenced information available is of them only. If there are any Hindu or Sikh Janjua Rajputs who come across this page and have any information regarding their specific history, please contribute to the article or get in contact with me directly by clicking on my username and I will aid the incorporation of that info into this article for you if you prefer.

It is very important that our Hindu and Sikh counterparts contribute to this article.

Many thanks --Raja 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Archives Oct 2007

Raja Sahab

Raja Sahab,

Let me tell you why a Hindu or Sikh Janjua will have a problem identifying with this article. If you are a Janjua, then I am your distant cousin who happens to claim pride in his Hindu/Sikh ancestors in having successfully resisted Islamic onslaught and temptation to convert to Islam when Turkish power was at peak in Punjab.

Forgive my rejection of your "bond making", but many tribes have claimed their relations to us Janjua Rajeh and we reject these "potential relations/Janjua offshoots", so we certainly do NOT recognise dubious claims of kinship dating back to mythological Mahabharata eras, so let's hope that's not what you are alluding to...

Raja Saheb, I am related with none of the above groups personally. We were allies of Hindu Janjuas (not Muslims) on equal terms and yet were distinct from them. Personally, I do not regard Muslim Janjuas to be Janjuas at all. But we can agree to disagree on that point. I am not going prior to any era prior to Khilji invasion with proven textual records. But I have no interest in discussing my ancestry here as it useless for the purpose of our discussion. I regret writign about my own personal background but I wrote about my background only because coming from a related Hindu/Sikh Rajput background I could not help being struck by obvious ironies (from Hindu/Sikh perspective) that are part of your narrative. "Janjuas were the most valiant Kshatriyas and yet the first ones to convert to Islam and then serving Babur who committed a genocide on Hindus and destroyed Hindu temples"...yeah right!...take this statement to any Hindu or Sikh website and see how it gets blasted to smithreens. I am surprised being such an intelligent person you have not yet been able to take note of this point :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by History Sleuth (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for complimenting my intelligence. The same that has deciphered that you are using a sock puppet to argue here, Mr Saini Internet Scholar? Again I do not care what your ancestral links belie, and they are irrelevant to the article. You forget time and time again that Janjuas used Babur (as did the Tomars and the Sesodias to remove an obstacle i.e. the Lodhi dynasty). Infact it was Rana Sanga himself (!!)who invited Babur into India in the first place. I am surprised people tend to "forget" this...

Re:destroying temples, I'm sure you will jointly condemn many Hindu kings who also destroyed, sacked and plundered Mandirs and temples too, such as the Parmar king Shubhatvarman 1193-1210) in Cambay and Dabhoi, as well as his own own kingdoms temples, the Lohara King Harsha of Kashmir, who according to the Rajtarangini assigned a Devotpatannayak (trans: "officer who uproots the Devas") and many others.

Re the pride aspect, you obviously have been enlightened below 3 weeks ago, how we take pride in also rebelling against conquerors, often in unrivalled examples. We have MORE pride however in being Muslims first and Im glad such Rajputs had the progressive attitudes to explore other faiths, and the foresight to overlook racial cultural prejudices (through intermarriages) but this is a personal thing, not appropriate for an online encyclopedia, nor is it worth discussing with someone via an internet lol.

No Hindu or Sikh Janjua worth his salt will be caught taking pride in "valiantly resisting Maharaja Ranjit Singh" or having been a general in Babar's army.

How about Raja Amar Singh Sidhu? He was a Durrani general on some campaigns? You may not recognise their status due to personal bias, but the question you raises was "no Sikh or Hindu worth his Salt" and not of your opinion. In this case, these Patiala Rajas still use the title bestowed by the Durrani conqueror of "Raja e Rajgan" even to this day. The Kachwahas and other Rajasthani Rajputs who were CELEBRATED Rajputs all heavily revere being Mughal Generals and even with matrimonial aliances (which Janjuas didn't do). They are certainly worth their salt as they were all Royals and Yaduvanshis & Suryavanshi Ram's descendants respectively? Allying to Badshah Babur was a means to an end. They rebelled against Humayun and fought hard (see below). They were later only pacified through Shahenshah Jalaludin Muhammad Akbar's personality, which won their (and almost entire Hind's) admiration. But then I answered that point below to you 4 weeks ago.....

Regarding resisting Maharaja Ranjit Singh, if you read the article you will see that the Janjua DID ally with the Sukerachakia misl through Man Singh Sukerchakia. But upon Ranjit's later ascension and control, his General Atar Singh Dhari assasinated the Janjua chief thus displaying his desire to overthrow the Janjuas in all their seats of power. We either adoptd the touted "submit and get key positions to survive policy" (like the Tiwana Maliks and others) or REBEL to the loss of their kingdoms, which they did.

The Watli Janjua Sultan held off Ranjit Singh and his army for 6 months and only surrendered for want of water for his subjects. Even when the skies poured water and restored the water tanks, he could have retracted his word on that day, but kept his word. The fact all the branches held off such a powerful conqueror as Ranjit Singh, is no mean feat and is an achievement in itself.

See how Guru Nanak poetically describes the genocide of unarmed people during Babar's invasion:

"Khurasan khasmana kiya Hindustanu daraiya Aapae dosu na deyi karta jamu kari mughlu chadhaiya Aiti maar payi karlande tain ko dardu na ayiya Karta tu sabhna ka soi Je sakta sakte kayu mare taa mani rosu na hoyi Sakta sihu maare paye vagaye khasme sa pursai Ratan vigadi vigoye kuttin muiya saar na koyi..."

"Having lifted Islam to the head, You have engulfed Hindustan in dread.... Such cruelties have they inflicted, and yet Your mercy remains unmoved.... Should the strong attack the strong the heart does not burn. But when the strong crush the helpless, surely the One who was to protect them has to be called to account.... O' Lord, these dogs have destroyed this diamond-like Hindustan, (so great is their terror that) no one asks after those who have been killed, and yet You do not pay heed..."

Correction, it states Khurasan in that text, not Islam as you have added. But then this article may not be the best place for this propoganda.

I copy pasted it from other side. I admit that translation of Khurasan is incorrect but the fact remains that Babar was a detestable invader from Hindu/Sikh standpoint and was involved in the genocide of Hindus and it had offended Guru Nanak to such an extent that he wrote the above verse. Now go and tell a Sikh Janjua that Guru Nanak was wrong about Babar. This is not propaganda above. It is part of Sikh scripture and integral part of cultural and religious experience of Sikh Janjuas. Sorry to say, it is your naivety to consider it propaganda.If you would expect a Sikh or Hindu Janjua to take pride in being Babar's colloborator, you have encroached a major religious and cultural faultline. This is the entire point. Realise that this is not "propaganda" BUT PART OF SIKH SCRIPTURE. No Sikh Janjua can go against it or question it.

Correction: No Sikh (Janjua or not) will be collaborative knowingly with a misrepresentation of their holy text, as is being purported by the "site" you cut and pasted from. The fact that Babur's region has been replaced with "Islam" infers classical communal propoganda. The naivety is sadly yours for the failure to recognise what has happened in the false translation here as anything but propoganda before pasting it hastily here.

But permit to paste up here a GENUINE english translation of the last will of Babur to his son and successor Humayun

“ Son, this nation Hindustan has different religions. Thank Allah for giving us this kingdom. We should remove all the differences from our heart and do justice to each community according to it's customs. Avoid cow-slaughter to win over the hearts of the people of this land and to incorporate the people in the matters of administration. Do not damage the places of worship and temples which fall in the boundaries of our rule. Evolve a method of ruling whereby all the people of the kingdom are happy with the king and the king is happy with the people. Islam can progress by noble deeds and not by terror.....Keep the people following different customs integrated into a single whole so that no part of the body of this kingdom becomes diseased. ” — Translated from the original will at National Museum, New Delhi

Also, the great Vanaprasthi narrates a story of how Guru Nanak Sahib met Babur in Kabul, who called him to his court in Kabul (whilst preparing to enter India) and he asked him if he would be successful in conquering Hind, to which the Guru assured that he would, but it would last only if his descendants considered Hind to be their own country.(BMR: 19-22). Infact some Sikh and Hindu sources claim that the great Guru even "blessed Babur" to rule in India! It's important to remember here that Babur never mentioned these accounts in his rather detailed Memoirs. Either way, again, irrelevant to the article.

From Hindu/Sikh Janjua perspective Turkish Muslim rule and invasion was an unmitigated political, moral and cultural disaster. What you as Muslim Janjua claim with pride is a matter of deep shame for Hindu and Sikh Rajputs.

That is your opinion, which is ofcourse hotly contested by many non Muslim Hindu moderates in India anyway as well as the Indian tourist Industry, so go figure. See below anyway, Janjua did not accept any rule with any dynasty without rebellion, as did the rest of Hind.

Also, you should have perhaps have section about the major reasons for Janjua and Punjabi Rajput conversion to Islam. You have mentioned them to have converted to Islam just because of Sufism, which is only partially true if not altogether false (Sufis were mostly respectful of Hindu mysticism).

Strange then, because many references actually claim Sufism to be the greatest reason for mass conversions, although forced conversions also occurred by the conquering rulers at times also, which ofcourse Islam itself does NOT recognise OR sanction. But then there has been a long divide between Muslim rulers and Islam generally.

Often the so called Muslim rulers actually persecuted and even executed many popular Muslim Sufi Saints who rebelled against their harsh rule of the masses way before the executions extended to Sikh Gurus. Rajputs whether Muslim or Hindu have been supportive of Sufism and even in contributing financially to their Dargahs.

The major reasons for "Rajput conversion to Islam" were:

1) Jizya -

Hang on, Muslim Rajputs paid a Zakat and tributary taxes also on their kingdoms. But the real irony here, is how can any Ruler who is enriching his treasury through discrimanatory taxes, THEN encourage his ripe earning bodies (subjects) to join his faith to AVOID paying him anything?! Surely financially this is a ridiculous and a rather naive assumption. Muslim kings and Rajputs were required to pay not only great taxes but also serve in armies also, a requirement not always expected of Hindu Rajput kings, though many did ofcourse take part. Jizya reason was not applicable to major Rajput kingdoms but only peasantry. The Rajput kings simply paid an annual tribute as did every other kingdom.

You and I both know Zakat and Jiya were not the same and not every Rajput was a king. Hindu Rajputs were incentivised to convert to Islam by relief from Jizya upon conversion. Hindu Rajputs who did not convert continued to pay Jaziya and were reduced to Dhimmi status.

Hmmm, are you aware that the Jizya was only temporarily reimposed under Shahenshah Aurangzeb's reign (though Brahmins, disabled, infirm and the elderly were totally exempt) with it eventually being suspended during the famine of the Deccan? So while the fit and form Muslim peasants paid a Zakat tax, the non Muslim fit and firm populace shouldn't pay anything?! Thats not a logical way to run a revenue system. Dhimmi status is not a reduction in status im afraid, rather a political/revenue designation that the "dhimidari/Zimmidari(translated: responsibility)" of that individual (the zimmi/dhimmi) rests with the state to whom the tax has been paid, hence the govt was the Zimmidhar. BUT what you are missing here (perhaps through ignorance of the finer details) is whats Jizya actually was. It exempted the individual from military service and offered protection from the state. Should the individual take part in the state army, he and his family would be exempt from paying it. Elderly and disabled peoples, children, women, priests, the insane, would also be exempt from this. So really, the Muslim convert was not only expected to pay a regular Zakat for ALL his holdings and family etc, but also work in the military service as a DUTY. The Sharia rule was also that should the Jizya collectors fall short of their defence of the nation, the Jizya must be returned.

This is the reason predominantly all well-to-do Rajputs were Muslims in West Punjab and Hindu Rajputs had fallen to the level of Jats and peasants. According to British records, Rajputs and other peasant communities had become indistinguishable in Punjab. Do you want to see a citation from Ibbetson?

No thanks, I have that citation, but are you aware that it also covered Muslim Rajputs also? Even Nehru (!) referred to many Punjabi Muslim Rajput peasants. Now, by your logic, how can this discrepancy occur? These so called "fallen" Rajputs who now worked as Jats etc, would have paid a land tax on the lands they cultivated to the local chaudhry and Raja anyway, being Muslim never exempted these land levies at all, so I refute that ill retrieved notion you mention above.

The Hindu Rajputs who were still able to do well in Punjab were all in the mountains where Turk armies could not easily penetrate. You are taking an obvious liberty with fact and logic to deny that Jizya and other financial reasons were among the reason for Rajput conversion to Islam. I do not expect you to agree to it because you are a Muslim Rajput but atleast acknowledge it as well-known opinion in an article meant for scholarly consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by History Sleuth (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hindu kings were exempt from Jizya too btw) but the fact that even your "non favourite" Nehru also mentioned that many people in India (even Rajputs) converted for economic reasons, is ofcourse known, afterall, even those jizya avoiding converting Hindu Rajputs were only human ;-) The fact none of them reverted to Hinduism and were later known for their Islamic zeal does stand as an interesting dilemma to the "jizya conversion theorists" :-)

Im afraid the liberty here, is taken by you to ignore that the Zakat was a much more regular tax and covered ALL assets in percentage (unlike the Jizya). I find it quite remarkable that you believe that to many Hindus their faith was so cheap, that they would exchange it for a tax exemption?! (which we've realised above was only to be replaced by another tax anyway...)

2) Lure to retain political positions -

Also occurred.

3) Plain cowardice in some cases -

Can you cite these "cases" of where the Hindu Rajputs became so scared of the Turkic rulers that they converted out of sheer cowardice?

Will provide later. I have many. I don't want to write anything without references. Secondly, stop citing Jawahar Lal Nehru as a scholarly source if you expect to be taken seriously by history scholars. He wrote school boy essays to forge Hindu-Mulsim unity. His intent was not history but politics of the time. It is not an academic grade work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by History Sleuth (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do. Not a generic reference, but a specific one please of WHICH Rajput clan was so scared of the Turks that they converted out of "cowardice" please, if you will be so kind.

Re: Nehru's scholastic/Political motives, the facts he mentions are personal observations of his, which is allowed as a citable reference, whether it pleases your standards or not.

4. (Strangely you forget point number 4), written by Jawarharlal Nehru no less which also mentions REAL CHANGE OF FAITH which ofcourse undoubtedly occurred. Infact, it continued well into the late 19th, early 20th century when a Rajput king of Rajghar India converted, much to his tribe's annoyance, and was even prepared to forfeit his kingdom for Islam. Furthermore, these conversions, if all as a whole were cowardice, poor conversions and at heart still Hindu, then they wouldn't be noticed as "by and large, the only converts who keep the prescriptions of the (Islamic) Faith intact are the Muslim Rajputs" as well as "thoroughly convinced of the truth of their own Islamic creed, though they are by no means intolerant or fanatical".

If you are familiar with pre-1947 Rajput composition of Punjab, the only Rajputs who were in the commanding position in socio-economic terms were Muslim Rajputs. Hindu Rajputs of Punjab had mostly degenerated in socio-economic sense due to economic and political repression during Muslim rule.

Wrong, Muslim Rajputs were in commanding positions mainly in WESTERN PUNJAB. Eastern Punjab however, was actually dominated by non Muslim; Sikh Jats. You also forget that the hill Rajas who Guru Gobind waged war with were actually Hindu kings. In pre 1947 era, all Rajputs, Muslim or Hindu were decimated in social economic terms due to the decaptitating effect of the Sikh empire on the old landed aristocracies and later the subsequent British rule, in not reviving the old kingdoms to their rulers in Punjab. So you can blame the Sikhs and British for that.

HOWEVER you make a very interesting point re titles. It wasn't just Muslim Rajput princes who earned titles from their Turkic overlords, but many Hindu Rajputs too. Infact some not only recieved titles from the Mughal emperors, but also sing ballads into the pre 1947 era boasting of it!

Muslim Rajputs were able to retain the titles of "Tikka" , "Raja" etc by converting out of their ancestor's glorious faith and becoming Turk collaborators but Hindu Rajputs of Punjab remained rebellious and hence lost a lot in economic and social terms during Muslim rule. For this reason, you will find Hindu Punjabi Rajputs to be a lot more subdued lot and the only pride they have is in having suffered degradation of Muslim rule without losing the faith of their ancestors.

A very simplistic view, one which doesn't take into account many paradoxical examples and political complexities. But strangely enough, Hindu Janjua Rajputs who I have met (and have corresponded with to soon update info about) have described how they STILL have a coronation ceremony dating centuries of their Sirdar, which is detailed in pre 1947 history also which celebrates their successful economic position in Punjab, Jhelum valley of Kashmir also, rather than your implied subjugated position.

Just totally forget that a Hindu/Sikh Rajput would be able to take any pride in "valiantly resisting Ranjit Singh". Ranjit Singh is the greatest hero of Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs.

I never asserted, neither does the article that Hindu or Sikh Janjuas take pride in this or resisted him? Where the heck did you get that?! Muslim Janjuas ofcourse enjoy this distinction with pride. But then the Sikh rule was only a short lived page in their history, so they don't over ponder on this.

When you use the word "valiantly" you are interpolating a feeling of pride in it. Another editor with another biased viewpoint could have described it "foolhardily".

True, yet where a book by a neutral source refers to the resistance as gallant, it can hardly be interpretted as the motive of the resistance, but moreover the interpretation is of the proven effort certainly.

They were though, so enraged at the percieved betrayal of Ranjit's word (considering they already allied with the Sukerachakia misl with Man Singh's vision to free Punjab, but were betrayed by the sudden assasination of their chief, exposing the plot to overthrow their power, see above) and subjugation of the Muslim aristocracy of Punjab that "when offered the opportunity, they were more than prepared to rally to the banner of the British and exact their revenge on the Sikhs..." which defeated the Sikh empire into the confines of a purchased Kashmir. However, ironically, they never at any stage held Sikhs in contempt for the wrongs exacted by their co religionists. Even to this day, the Malot Janjua branch aids Sikh and Hindu visitors in Pakistan on holy journeys, Katas Mandir for one example being a great Hindu religious place, under local Muslim Janjua control.

Sisodia Rajputs of Mewar had boycotted and excommunicated Hindu Rajputs who had inter-married with Muslim rulers. They were treated with a contempt which is legendary. Let me refer you the conversaton between Prithvi Raj Rathore and Maharana Pratap which give very good insight into authentic Hindu Rajput attitude towards Muslim rulers and their Hindu colloaboratrs:

When the exiles were facing the prospect of actual starvation, Pratap wrote to Akbar indicating his readiness to negotiate a treaty. Pratap's first cousin (his mother's sister's son) Prithviraj Rathore, who was one of Akbar's courtiers, heard of this overture. He is said to have grown despondent and wrote thus to his cousin Pratap:

The hopes of the Hindu rest on the Hindu surya yet the Rana forsakes them. But for Pratap, all would be placed on the same level by Akbar; for our chiefs have lost their valour and our females their honour. Akbar is the broker in the market of our race; he has purchased all but the son of Udai (Singh II of Mewar); he is beyond his price. What true Rajput would part with honour for nauroza [the Persian new year's festival, where Akbar selected women for his pleasure]; yet how many have bartered it away? Will Chittor come to this market ...? Though Patta (an affectionate name for Pratap Singh) has squandered away wealth (on warfare), yet he has preserved this treasure. Despair has driven man to this market, to witness their dishonour: from such infamy the descendant of Hammir (Maharana Hammir) alone has been preserved. The world asks, from where does the concealed aid of Pratap emanate? None but the soul of manliness and his sword.. The broker in the market of men (Akbar) will one day be surpassed; he cannot live forever. Then will our race come to Pratap, for the seed of the Rajput to sow in our desolate lands. To him all look for its preservation, that its purity may again become resplendent. It is as much impossible for me to believe that Pratap has called Akbar his emperor as to see the sun rising in the west. Tell me where do I stand? Shall I use my sword on my neck or shall I continue my proud bearing? Pratap replied to him:

"By my God Eklinga, Pratap would call the emperor Turk alone (the word 'Turk' carries a pejorative flavour in many Indian languages) and the sun would rise in the east. You may continue your proud bearing as long as Pratap's sword dangles on the mughal head. Pratap would be guilty of Sanga's blood, if he was to tolerate Akbar. you would have the better of it, no doubt Prithviraj, in this wordy quarrel."

Thus ended the incipient rapprochement between Pratap and Akbar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharana_Pratap

This is the real Rajput talking above , Raja Saheb. The standard of Rajput pride and honor was set by Pratap.

I never inferred that he was a fake. However, I am neither a Rajasthani, nor has this ANYTHING to do with the article. But funnily enough, even Pratap's later descendants also explored and embraced the Islamic faith, many Muslims fought alongside him, and his most famous general and ally was Hakim Khan Sur. He was a proud chivalrous man, who from what I know never uttered a word of offence for Islam or it's adherents. Only for Akbar et al.

I think you need to re-orient the slant of your article if you ever want Hindu and Sikh Janjuas to be able to identify with this article in some way. Take care... HS--History Sleuth (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

After due consideration of your points, I don't believe in pandering to groups through "slants", so thanks for your advice anyway HS saheb.

Pandering to a group? Hmmm.... don't worry I am not going to edit the article. Take care. I will talk to you later when I get time.

--~Raja~ (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Image copyright problem with Image:Jawan Sawar Muhammad Hussain.jpg

The image Image:Jawan Sawar Muhammad Hussain.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am more than a little puzzled. I logged on to see my Sikh history as a janjua but everything I've ever known about us is very different from that written here. All the janjuas of sikh and hindu religion that I know of are maliyars and related castes. I approached my olders and they have said that janjuas are not rajputs and that the muslim janjuas in present Panjab have created themselves as raputs. We have more in common with rains than janjuas or rajputs. All janjuas in india know their caste and are very proud they do not need to invent history. There are castes that have great fighting history but do not need to be promoting themselves as different. 17:51, 18 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadhoo (talk • contribs)

You are right about being puzzled, because you have just quoted above that you are a Janjua, but then you state your tribe is common with rains than Janjuas (you JUST quoted Janjuas as distinct to your tribe which is suss...), in which case your tribe is definitely something else, with the possibly of just the misapplied name of Janjua. This has happened to many great tribes with lesser individuals using our clan names for some reason of promotion etc (i.e. Kokhar, Bhatti, Gakhar, Toors etc).

This article on the other hand is fully sourced and referenced from almost 99% non Muslim Janjua sources, hence your claims that Muslim Janjuas generating Rajput ancestry is proven wrong.

Regarding your Sikh position, what is puzzling me is that Sikh Janjua Rajputs have not only identified themselves but PROMOTE their Janjua Rajput ancestry also [3] [4] from Sikh Rajput sites no less....

Regarding Hindu Janjuas, it is recorded how many of them still retain their Rajput chief coronation ceremonies and are known as Dogras in their regions(also see their history mentioned in books specialisign on Dogras, where it states they are an off shoot of the Muslim Janjua Makhiala branch which retained it's Hindu faith, the Badlial and Bihal septs).

Infact, the great biographer of Mughal Akbar, Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak would not have recorded the Janjua as "amongst the most renowned Rajputs of Hind", had they been from what you allege

In short, I believe your tribe is not genuine Janjua Rajput and you have also confirmed that they do not have anything in common with real Janjuas, who incidentally, still to this day are referred to as Raja Saheb, with some septs becoming extinct from poverty through their ancestral tradition of never doing menial work, even to survive...--~Raja~ (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Muslim Janjuas as Arjuna's descendants

Just curious to know how Muslim Janjuas can claim to be Arjuna's and Krishna's desendants. Spiritually, that ancestry ended as soon Janjuas converted to Islam. Islam calls anything pre-Islamic Jahaliya. Hindus would regard converted Rajputs with equal condescension as Malechhas and not consider them Rajput/Kshatriya anymore.

Firstly, let me correct you, that Janjua allege Arjun descent, NOT Krishna descent.

HS - Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna as well as his cousin. Both shared a common grandfather. Arjuna's mother was Krishna's aunt and Krishna was grand-uncle of Janmajeya , the claimed progenitor of Janjua clan. So you are not without some of Krishna's blood if you are desendants of Arjuna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by History Sleuth (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. You've just stated how Arjun's progeny had the blood of Subhadra and Vasudeva, NOT Krishna's himself. NONE of Krishna's children (the route to provide Krishna blood) were ever married to the Arjunid Pandavas at all. Janjua's claim ancestry only of Arjun and have NEVER claimed ancestry of Krishna at all and hence CANNOT be Krishnavi descendants.

Secondly, many Hindus who are extremist would consider your opinion, but it is proven that in real world scenarios many also do not .

Lineal genetic descent is a proven scientific fact, not "spiritual" ones, especially when one considers that many of todays Hindus were at one time NON Hindus and therefore no longer "spiritual heirs" to even the original Dravidians or indeed the much touted (and poorly debated) Aryans.

Faith conversion/progression, does not alter societal practices of a dominant ruling tribe simply by the change of worship methods of a Deity. Especially in a region as culturally and religiously diverse as Hind.

Ironically despite you allegation that they are no longer Kshatriya (which Muslim Janjuas are certainly not) Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya (author of many books, has referred to the converted Janjuas as the most valiant Kshatriya of Punjab!.

HS - This is where you erring, IMHO. Kshatriya status, and correspondingly Rajput status, was lost as soon as one gave up the faith of Aryan/Vedic ancestors. The spiritual tradition that gave greatness to Arjuna (enough for you to claim descent from him despite being a Muslim) is categorical about this aspect.

It does not recognize "lineal genetic descent" as you claim. The Dharmic tradition based on Laws of Manu and Mahabharta , which Arjuna, being a kshatriya, would have defended by all means, is clear that there is no "lineal genetic descent" and kshatriya status is not vouchsafed by birth and can be lost through violation of spiritual tradition. Conversion to Islam would be one such violation. You are encouraged to read more about Laws of Manu and other sources of vedic traditions.

You are relying on colonial accounts about "martial races" theory which has now been dismissed even by Pakistani army. Indian army got rid of this racist nonsense as soon the British left. Pakistani army realized the folly of this myth after the humiliating 1971 defeat. Read more here:

http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/nov/pak-army.htm

Thats a Hindu belief regarding Kshatriya hood, not ancestral genetics. Were this the case, that your deed's change ancestry, then Karna wouldn't have been reviled for absent lineage by Draupadi et al.

HS- I am glad to have run into a Muslim who knows so much about Mahabharta :-) . It was a fault of Pandavas to have downgraded him. According to Mahabharta, Pandavas were not faultless. Krishna and Yudhisthra gave full respect to Karna and always chided Arjuna for insulting a great warrior like Karna. Karna's situation was the adopted son of a royal charioteer. The dice was totally loaded agianst him . But he was still allowed to rule a kingodm. The town of Karnal is named after him in Haryana. The characters of Mahabharta are not ideal and it pointed out repeatedly as part of the narrative. Mahabharta clarifies that it was written in the period of Dwapara when the religious virtues were deteriorating and hence none of the characters were blameless.

Likewise. Its a great topic and I think the story itself shows immense wisdom to anyone who hears it (which I believe is also a claimed miracle of that narrative?) Karna did exemplify many ideals, even today he is spoken of with respect. I think the issue of his Kshatriyahood was an imposed dilemma to the ruling royal classes, who ofcourse saw Kshatriyahood as their "right". He was exceptionally gifted as a warrior though, although both he and Arjun were responsible for killing the other's sons.

If you have read Mahabharta with any great depth , you would know that Karna was deemed a Kshatriya by Sage Parsurama just by observing how he sacrificed his own comfort for others. Read more about Karna and Parsurama episode.--History Sleuth (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read that "at length". BUT the same Sage had cursed him also because he hid his origins from him too, as he trained him on the condition that he was a Kshtriya as he stated, but upon realisation he wasn't, he cursed him serverely for pretending to be a Kshtriya for training purposes, when in actuality, he was not kshatriya blood....

But I do follow your point re a Muslim no longer being a Kshatriya if he has given up the beliefs of Hinduism, I have stated this above. Muslim Rajputs never refer to themselves as Kshatriyas, but simply as Rajputs, which although in India is (as I have cited) taken to mean the same, in Punjab however, they simply were not taken to mean the same. Rajput simply denoting a ruling warlike tribe of royal social status. The very same point that even Major Todd made of the Rajasthani tribes.

Muslim Janjuas do not represent the values of Arjuna and in my humble opinion should refrain from referring to them as their ancestors.

Unfortunately for your humble opinions, they ARE his sons whether they were of Abrahamic faith, African faith or a Martian faith, a lineage does NOT end based on faith, how ridiculous. This is THEIR heritage, not anyone elses therefore deserves a place in whatever their current faith would be. This is also supported by the view of neutrality on Wikipedia.

Arjuna would have never aided the like of Babar , Gazni , Khalji, Ghori , etc against fellow Hindu/Aryan kings and declared it with pride the way this wikipedia does. Converting under duress after a defeat to an invading army is hardly a sign of bravery. Collaborating with invaders against fellow kinsmen, which you are not even making an effort to conceal in the article, is not bravery either.

This article presents a neutral view. Why should history be doctored to hide negatives and hide subjective truths? Is THAT what you refer to as "BRAVERY"? Thats HYPOCRISY Im afraid. The article doesn't seek to hide truth like many other articles do.It seeks a balanced historic view.

You make the naive assumption that all people became Muslim under duress? Many tribes converted out of sheer change of faith too according to Jawaharlal Nehru and even as recently as the 19th century Hindu Rajput kings converted out of choice to Islam which is recorded by the colonial sources. Please read Muslim Rajputs for further info.

Now, despite criticising the article, you obviously havent read it properly. Let's take a look at each mentioned conqueror you hold Janjuas in contempt of allying with; (in chronological order)

• Ghazni - Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni? Maharaja Jayapala is INFACT, (according to Prof. Ram Gopal Misra) stated to showed a "spirit of aggression so sadly lacking in later Rajput kings", his dynasty eventually losing their entire kingdoms. You are therefore incorrect here.
• Ghori - Sultan Muiz-ul-Din Muhammad of Ghor? The Janjuas lost their kingdom of Mathura fighting them, eventually returning to the Salt Range, and mounting a new campaign against them, halting all traffic between Kabul and Lahore, razing Lahore to the ground in defiance and fighting him unrelentingly to the man. You are again incorrect here.
• Khalji - Sultan Jalaludin Khalji? This is strange because the Sultan ACTUALLY wrote of the Janjua as "his ENEMIES" leading a punitive expedition against them for their unrelenting resistance. He recorded, "how at another time I mader the blood flow in Janjua, that a boat might have glided in the hills of Jud" Now that hardly appears to be an alliance?
• Babur - Badshah Zaheer-Ud-Din Muhammad Babur? Now this is interesting. Considering the Janjuas resistance to the Delhi Sultanate, it seemed only natural for them to ally with him to overthrow the Lodis (not unfamiliarly the way Rana Pratap used Sher Shah's brother against Humayun?). But the proof of this being political, is that they immediately rebelled against Humayun, even heading the construction of Rohtas Fort under Sher Shah's patronage, to STOP Humayun returning. However, when he did return, he exacted a strong revenge against the Janjuas who stoutly resisted him through battle Eventually understanding the irresistable power of the Mughal was here to stay in Hind, they eventually accepted their sovereignty as did the majority of Hind and its Ruling clans.

Janjuas like any other Panjabi tribe (such as the Sikh Maharaja Amar Singh of Patiala aiding Abdali? Gaining the title of Raja-e-Rajgaan? for political reasons) fought for their kingdom's interests.

Of all the conquerors you just mentioned, Janjua Rajputs only allied with ONE of them, and that to for political motivations. The rest of your named conquerors were resisted CONSISTENTLY, even to the loss of our kingdoms. So I find your points very naive aswell (as proven above) incorrect.

Your values, culture and faith are totally antithetical to that of Prince Arjuna and hence people are going to find it curious why you are still hanging on to his hallowed memory.

Thats strange and I openly challenge this, how is it strange that a grandson of a Brahmin Rishi Vyas Arjuna can become a celebrated Kshatriya (Brahmins ofcourse DO NOT fight, and Vyasa was the father of Pandu, father of Arjuna) and there's no strange curiousity in this?

His descendants totally renounce their Hindu faith for Buddhism, there is no curiousity that their are still Arjun descent Kurus?

They later disregard their ancestral practice of Shiv Lingam worship (Arjun famously did this to acquire many celestial weapons) as Vaishanvites, yet there was no curiousity?

They suddenly adopt a faith which they are comfortable with who; like the modern Orthodox Christian Greeks who hold on to the mighty achievements of their Pagan Helenic ancestors, the Italians of their mighty Roman ancestors,, people would then suddenly find this curious? I dont think so, I think considering how Punjab is known as the "melting pot of India" it is obvious that the peoples there would develop a synthesis of races and cultures more diverse than any other region in the continent.

Last but not least, you say Arjun would never have fought against his own Aryan folk? Are you even aware that the Mahabharata narrates how he subjugated the whole of Northern India Kshatriya kings ("Aryan kinfolk" as you put it) under his clan? In fact the Bhagvad Gita is a record of his inner debate with Sri Krishna, about waging war on his OWN FAMILY, the Kauravas, who stood against him. Some texts refer to this as religiously motivated by ethics/morality, others have stated this to have been a political/racial war. Again, each side has their own perspective.

HS - Arjuna fought to defend Aryan faith. Again, I must clarify the way the word "Arya" was taught by British was wrong. It is not a racist but a cultural concept. The so-called Aryans that Arjuna fought had all fallen from Aryan ideals. He fought to restore those values in pursuit of Arya Dharma. Kaurvas, their cousins, had taken to evil ways. Imagine disrobing a royal woman in the court! That is why he fought them. Without alignment with Vedic Dharma , Arjuna was a nobody. In Bhagvat Gita it is made clear to him time and again that the war is not for his personal glory but in pursuit of Dharma.

I agree re the values of Arjun's campaign being religiously ethical too. However, other sources also claim counter to this (not me, Im not getting into THAT debate lol). I was just making the point, that sometimes wars against your own people do happen for political reasons too, in response to your point that Arjun wouldnt have fought his own Arya/Aryan people. Personally, I see the validity of his campaign in a "conquering" sense, rather than imposing his moralistic beliefs upon others. Remember, he waged war, not missionary work lol..

About Raja of Patiala being Abdali collaborator. You make a fair point but you should know that no Sikh ever invokes with pride the name of the Rajas of Patiala. He is not regarded as a Sikh hero. Infact this incident is only used to taunt Sikhs from Patiala. Sikh hero is Ranjit Singh who valourously subdued Afghans and conquered Kashmir and parts of Afghanistan.

True, but that House has relations with some known Rajput Houses. I know its a contested debate whether Patiala was a Sikh kingdom or a Sidhu Jat kingdom, personally their actions/deeds showed best. But either way, I respect that as a King he may have took a decision which he thought best for his kingship/kingdom, many Houses, included Mewar did the same when they petitioned the British foreign rulers for help against the Marathas. Politics usually overrides majority of the time.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not here to insult or downgrade anyone but the irony of the narrative you have presented is too striking.

The article is a balanced cited history of a tribe. I stress, that we havent attempted to hide history, but project it in a neutral balanced way. What you may term as non Brave, many may hail AS brave. It is a point of view/perspective I guess. But thats left to the readers to draw conclusion, rather than lead them to appear just positive/negative through structured censorship.

Perhaps you are not aware that status of Rajput and Kshatriya was not by birth and was lost as soon as one lost that culture that gave meaning to those words. Muslim Janjuas can be considered Rajputs only the most distorted meaning of the term.

Ironically, the British who had a very sound knowledge of "Rajputism" actually referred to the Muslim Janjuas as "the only really pure Rajputs in the plains of Punjab...." as well as "Doubtless pure Rajputs" and "well-known Martial Race of Janjua Rajput tribe of Jhelum" (the home of only Muslim Janjua Rajputs) and also, "The great Janjua tribe have retained their pride of lineage and their Rájput title, and can be ranked as Míán Sáhu or first class Rájpúts". Your opinion is obviously not corroborated by these non Janjua sources...

Although I must say that I am heartened to learn that Muslim Janjuas have not forgotten their truly great forefathers and maybe there might be a ray of hope that they might come back to the faith of their heroic ancestors.

Respectfully,HS —Preceding unsigned comment added by History Sleuth (talk • contribs) 05:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the Shuddi movement (a movement which tried to reconvert Muslim Rajputs back to Hinduism) tried their best to convert my ancestors back to Hinduism, and that was embarassingly unsuccessful. As a Rajput, as an Aulad-e-Arjun, I know one thing, no matter what faith we Arjun blood sons of Rai Janjua follow, we tend to remain very martial and rebellious. I pray THAT ray of achievement always continues....--~Raja~ (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Porus as a Janjua: Credible References requested

Raja Sahab, thanks for interesting commentary. I would respond later. But could you provide a credible refrence on Raja Porus being a Janjua warrior? It is interesting you have camoflauged his reference rather well under "Janjua Patriarch" section and I think that you know very well that there is no written record or reference whatsoever about Porus in any of the Indian/Hindu sources . The Greek sources provide no reference whatsoever about whether Porus was a Janjua or related with any other Kshatriya lineage for that matter. Had it not been for the hagiographic accounts of Pseudo-Callisthenes, Indians (also Pakistanis) would not know anything about Porus.

If you are speculating that Porus might have been a Janjua without the support of authentic references, that fair in a sense but you should make it amply clear to your readers that it your opinion or theory but not a proven fact. There are other groups in Punjab who claim Porus as theirs.

Respectfully,

HS

PS - Porus did not lose that battle. Western historians simply cherry-picked those accounts from Pseudo-Callisthenes that were most favorable to Alexander . I think Oliver Stone's "Alexander" sets the record straight.

--History Sleuth (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that part of the article, admittedly could have been better written to reflect this. I have provided the reference where the Janjua claim Rai Por ancestry, and also enhanced the reference where Punjab was ruled by a tribe known as the Pandoo, the origins of the Janjua. Again you are not reading the article properly as it doesn't state he was a Janjua, just that he may have been a Pandav.--~Raja~ (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is controversial because the reference to Porus comes in the following sections, giving readers the impression that Porus was a confirmed Janjua

Ancient Patriarchs of the Janjua Rajput

The Pandoo lineage of Porus would also warrant credible references. I think you should create a separate section for Porus to present your theory. It is not a confirmed fact. Readers will be compliment this article for its objectivity rather than thinking something is being camouflaged. Just my two cents--History Sleuth (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have actually stated in the article that Porus's lineage remains unconfirmed and that the Pandoos, ruled Punjab in that era, and Janjua merely claim Porus to be an ancestor, which is a citable reference. I am not presenting any theories here as Wikipedia doesnt allow this. lso The Oliver Stone version is a laughable version of the fight, with the known fact that it was the Multanis who made his army return to Macedon after their conquer. Bias exists on both western and eastern texts, however the West seems to have a more neutral view of it that the sudden pseudo RSS historians....--~Raja~ (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Title of the Janjua page should be just "Janjua" rather Janjua Rajput

I would like to bring your kind notice toward this important point that, Janjua is a clan which contains both Rajput and Jatt, see the proof here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jat_Clans (Janjua is there in the list of Jats)

Second important point is that when Janjua is also Jat, then Choudhry is the title of Jat and Rajputs many Rajputs and Jats use Choudhry as Title, but unfortunately this is not included in the main titles of Janjuas.

I would like that both these historical errors should be fixed to give a true information to the world.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.41.232 (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The so-called proof you have provided is very flimsy indeed - the fact remains that the Janjua are widely recognised by the vast majority of the leading authorities on the anthropology of the Punjab, as a tribe of undoubted Rajput pedigree (the British referring to the tribe as the purest Rajputs of the Punjab, no less), so please desist from persisting with this silly assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.143.159 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

May I add, that this page read Janjua Rajputs, because this page is ABOUT the Janjua Rajputs. Any Jatt element are more than free to provide their own page if they like. This article is fully sourced and cited for the claims it makes of the RAJPUT Janjuas. If Janjuas use the title Chaudhry, please provide a citation for this from a credible literary source and I will gladly add it to the article for you.--~Raja~ (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a big deal simply go to Google and write "Ch. * Janjua", you will find lot of janjua who use choudhry, more I personally know many, Ch. Muzaffar Khan Janjua (Ex. Chairman PPP- District Sanghar), Ch. Abid Farooq Janjua (Stood for MPA election Sanghar), Ch, Muhammad Shareef Janjua, from Adhi(Janjua) Director PTCL Mandi Bahawal Din, Ch. Hashmat Khan Janjua from Sodhra, Wazirabad, very famous industrialist.

Well when many jats can be the descendant of Janjau (Dhamiyal, Nthayal, Ghumman, etc all are called jats), when Minhas can be the Rajputs and Jats, when Bhatti Can be the Rajputs and Jats, then how can you say Janjua can not be converted into jats, well for your kind information, majority of the jats are descedent of Rajputs.

My objective is not to make Janjua jat but the fact is fact, we are basically from Jhelum and our forefather are the Rajputs. Migrated 1100 years back to different areas of punjab but later they are called jatt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.10.250 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing about which I want to bring your attention, we are discussing that Janjua are rajput or Jat, but wikipedia has made Janjua " Tarkhan", if you don't believe see the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarakh%C4%81na

well, don't waste timing in unnecessary topic, rather go and save our tribe from becoming, Tarkhan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.10.250 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I think the maintainers of this page firstly need to respect the alerts as help to make the page better and then act on them. Also, the maintainers should apply to some sort of protection from vandalism. Too many people try to claim that many Rajput clans are Jats and that Jat clans are Rajputs. Frankly, it happens allot. --BhainsRajput (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bhains Saheb, the alerts have been dealt with, as I have seen many non notable names added to the article which dont belong here as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

As for the tidy up, the non referenced points, which were very few sentences, have also been deleted. I have therefore removed all the tags and request that before future tags are added, please advise WHAT you are adding them for, WHICH part of the article you are specifically contesting and adding that tag FOR. Failure to comply with this by any user, will be deemed as counter productive to the article, potentially as vandalism is not discussed and consistently insertedand will be challenged robustly.

Now regarding you advice for protection, I also concur that there is a strong effort on Wikipedia to misrepresent KNOWN Rajput tribes as Jatts etc, when there is an obscure tribe claiming that Rajput clans name for whatever reason. The article appears ok from this vandalism for now. The title of this article is Janjua RAJPUT and hence ALL references and information mention only the history and achievements of the Janjua RAJPUTS. Hope that helps the vandals understanding. If you would like any help in dealing with this issue on any other page, I will consult my sources and provide appropriate references where required.--~Raja~ (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm not familiar with this subject of the Rajput clans. However, I can tell that the subject is being promoted using peacock terms, i.e. words like "dominant", "celebrated", etc. etc. The aim of this article is not to give all the best examples or opinions of the Janjua Rajputs, but to present a balanced view based on reliable sources. Please read the guidelines at WP:PEACOCK to see how to edit the article to avoid this. Fences and windows (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Janjuas converted to Islam

Janjuas converted to Sufism on the hands of Baba Farid of multan. Although no historical events were recorded, but oral tradition persists. According to oral tradition, the king called Maldev(the ancestor of all janjuas) had to confront his relatives when he accepted Islam. According to some stories that i have personally heard, Maldev had to flee to Potohar region to avoid voilent confrontation with his brothers. And there are some people that say that Janjuas converted to Islam due to fear. They are hopelessly wrong and ignorant. Janjuas never accepted the rule of the sultans of delhi, and emperor Balban even sent an expedition here to crush the Janjuas(who were muslims at that time). Janjuas also never accepted Ibrahim Lodhi's rule even though they were muslims. And another thing, Janjuas are followers of Sufism, which never was spread by forced conversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.21.178 (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for this? Fences and windows (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Given below is one version Rose's book. However there may be others.

Raja Mal is said to have reigned in the days of Mahmud of Ghazni , and his authority was probably more or less recognised from Rawalpindi to the Jhelum . When Mahmud Invaded India the Janjuas opposed him , were defeated and fled to the Jungles . Mahmud followed them up , and succeeded in capturing Raja Mal himself . The Raja was released on condition that he and his tribe should embrace Islam .

Denzil Ibbetson, Edward MacLagan, H.A. Rose "A Glossary of The Tribes & Casts of The Punjab & North-West Frontier Province", 1911 AD,Published by Asian Educational Services Vol II Page 355

--130.101.152.12 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a reference for the above source of Baba Farid's conversion, however, there is a source to confirm that Raja Mal's conversion was due to Sufism too (Jammu-Kashmir-Ladakh by Parvez Dewan, Manas Publications, 2004, p422)--Revolution51 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Individuals are being added who appear to have little notability. Can editors more familiar with the subject please remove the entries that appear to promote non-notable individuals. This is not a directory of every Janjua Rajput. Fences and windows (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article

I started laughing when almost everywhere in this page the term 'Jat/Rajput' is used for Janjuas. Here is a fact that Janjuas are known as 'Rajas', which is a term used for Bhatti Rajputs aswell as Chibs of the region. Jats are considered low-born by the Janjuas who are one of the rulling clans of the region. Than I laughed at the Hindhu Propaganda here. Some people wrote Maldev was forced into accepting Islam by Ghori or Ghazni. Thats an evidence-less and baseless statement without any historical backing.

And another thing, to the Hindhus who say Janjuas cowardly accepted Islam: Say that on the face of a Janjua in real life and I bet you will learn a very valuable lesson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.35.225 (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This kind of comment is unhelpful, you're just baiting Hindu editors. And do you have reliable sources to back up these beliefs? Can every editor please rely on reliable sources rather than their own personal knowledge, opinions and biases. Fences and windows (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Janjuas of Jehlum became muslim to save the honour of their women and children. After many of the Janjuas had been killed and the rest had been captured by the Ghoris including the Janjua chief and the Janjua women and children. Ghori had put the condition before the Janjua chief that either he becomes muslim along with his tribe or the chief and all the Janjua men will be killed and the women and children will be enslaved. The Janjua chief had no choice. He knew that he and the Janjua men were as good as dead. he was not afraid to die but dying would not save the honour of the women and children. So, in order to save the honour of the women and children the chief made the decision to convert. I think he made the right choice. Anybody would make this choice in such circumstances. Janjuas were wearing sacred hindu threads called janjus.Janjuas took off their janjus and put them in a large pile and burned them after converting. Historylover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? But then if other Rajputs who also converted this dubious way wore Janjus too, why did they retain their surnames? This name is from the word Jangju meaning warrior, not Janju.

Similar incident took place during the time of prophet Mohammed. Battle of Hunain was against the tribe of prophet,s foster mother Halima Sadia. Prophet Mohammed had led this attack personally. most of the tribal men had been killed, some had been captured alive including women and children and the rest had fled away.This tribe was the richest tribe around. After three days the runaway tribal men decided to convert to Islam. They came to the prophet and agreed to convert on the condition that all their men, women, and children should be released and the wealth, property , goats, sheep and camels should be given back to them. Prophet Mohammed agreed to release the men, women, and children but refused to hand over the wealth, property and animals as everything had already been distributed among the muslim soldiers. The tribal men agreed to this condition. This tribe converted in order to save the honour of their women and children. Otherwise the women and children were going to be sold into slavery. Historylover.

Bhatis of Bhatner became muslim to save the honour of their women and children. Bhatner had been attacked twice by muslims and Bhatis had successfully defended their fort. The third time muslims had come prepared for a long siege. There was no food left in the castle and people started to starve. The Bhati chief hung out the white flag of peace. The Bhati chief said that he will not give up the castle but would agree to any other condition for peace. The muslims put two conditions, conversion or matrimonial alliance.The Bhati chief refused to make matrimonial alliance as this would the most dishonourable thing todo but agreed to convert. The Bhati chief sacrificed his faith but saved the honour. Some hindus saved their faith but sacrificed their honour by making matrimonial alliances. (Who was right and who was wrong?. I do not blame anyone. I think they made their decisions according to the difficult circumstances that they were in.By sacrificing the honour of a few they saved the honour of millions of hindu women in general). This is from the 2nd volume, history of the Bhatis in col. James tods "annals and antiquities of Rajasthan". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.204 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your "support, but many of us are Muslim by choice as were our ancestors who even till recent days defied the Shruddi movement to reconvert us back to Hinduism. But pray people dont belive all the negative propoganda that is fed to them about other peoples. Never blame a faith for the acts of it's adherents. Remember bro, theres a disgrace in every race...--~Raja~ (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)