Talk:Janjua/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why every time Janjua jat is removed from articles

I would like to bring the attentions of Wikipedia Management toward an important point, when many people trying to write that they are Janjua jat, this is itself a proof that Janjua are also Jat. As many tribes in this world you can see like Bhutta, Minhas and many more, they called Jat and Rajput at the same time in different regions.

I want who gave this authority to a person to remove and change the dimensions of the historical part of this world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.69.46 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you dont seem to be understanding here that although many tribes have two off shoots (one Jat and other Rajput) the Rajput representation of Janjua has had a consistent and well recorded reputation, referenced in tens if not hundreds of books, and is very distinct from the alleged Jat Janjuas who are very small and obscure in numbers.

The Jat side is more than welcome to begin an article on their own referenced and cited history where available, I offer to help with it if you like, tough my time is scarce. But I would hasten to add that the article cannot claim the achievements and history of the Rajput side as their own. This article specifically refers to the Rajputs of Janjua and in no way can you justify claiming their history for anyone else. Hope this makes sense. --~Raja~ (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Janjuas are found in Jats, Tarkhans and many other castes, so either we merge into one large article (which is impracticle), or we have a seprate Jat Janjua article (which is more practicle). Thanks--Sikh-History 13:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All janjuas found is other castes except Jatts claimed to be the Rajput. I would like to clear the misconception. They dont called themselves tarhan or soemthing but Rajputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 14:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

i would like to add some comments on jat janjua , the janjuas who select the profession of farming and land cultivation are addressed as title chaudhry where as others are called raja as title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.231.8 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for content inclusion

There is need for consensus weather this article should include content for Telis Lohars , Tarkhans , Musaliis ,and other castes groups such as Jat, or that a new article is created .

• Ideally this article is adequate and my vote goes for making this article more comprehensive , other options are have one separate article for all other Janjua castes ,
• yet another option is to have multiple articles for different Janjua castes .
• Also there must be more comprehensive content also covering other major historical occupations .

Intothefire (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The article title is Janjua Rajput and therefore talks of them. Other castes are welcome to write up their own pages. The Rajput name of the article clearly indicates which caste this relates to. - supersaiyan

I am laughing after reading this section of the article. " Telis Lohars , Tarkhans , Musaliis ,and other castes groups" these are not the sub castes of any Caste. These are the people who adopted the castes and called themselves rajputs. e.g You can find many Muslais, Jolahay etc who called themselved Bhatti. Nai (barbers) Khokhar Rajputs. I have even seen Tarhaans called themselves Bajwa, chatha, Sandhu and Waraich jats. Sane in bhutta, siyal etc

I would like to clear the concept, if anybody call himself something that does not mean that this is the subcaste of that main caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

why the over emphasis on religion?

Why does this article over emphasize religion? who cares, this is an article about the tribe of Janjuas, this inclusion of religion takes away from the true account of this very interesting ethnic group. Incidently, there are also Janjua Christians and even Jews, but there is no mention of them. Why dont we just focus on the ethnic and historical aspect of this interesting tribe with mentioning only pertinent moments in history where there is a need to mention religious affiliations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.49.142 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be doing a lot of work on this one over the next few weeks. I have fired a few "warning shots" and need to see what develops from those before deciding what should go, stay or be expanded. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It mentions the faith sides purely as information in the turning point of the groups history, as also mentioning the conversions of some branches to Sikhism whilst others remaining Hindu too. I would like to see a Janjua Christian and Jewish reference as a researcher I have never come across a single reference for this? The main focus of the article is pertinent points in history. - Supersaiyan

Item moved for discussion

An IP and then a registered user has been adding

A segment of Janjuas influential Zamindar families living at shadia, Punjab ( District Mianwali), Katha sughral and Jauhar abad in Distt Khushab share the same ancestry. The Janjuas of Shadia District Mianwali are further divided into many khels or sub clans ie Aziz Khel, Mulke khel, phato khel,Raja Khel, Malu Khel, Diwan khel, Azmat Khel, Sikandar khel, Laungi Janjua, Moosi Janjua and bejari Janjuas .

They did this repeatedly without a citation but eventually added "Tareekh Aqwam-e-Kashmir Mohammad Deen Fauq" as the source, after some prompting.

As much as I would like to assume good faith, that is not a complete citation - eg: it needs a page number - & I do have real doubts about its reliability etc. Can someone please provide a copy of the relevant bit(s) from that source which support the above statement. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

And I have reverted again. This time the contributor supplied a different citation, although they have not responded to my initial request above. The alternate citation was some sort of village/district record. That is almost certain to be a primary source but I'll happily take a look at the stuff if someone can provide copies of the relevant bits. Again, I realise that I am laying myself open to accusations of bad faith here but, honestly, I think it is more a case of trying to guide a new contributor who is perhaps a little confused regarding how we do things here. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for replying late. I had cited my union council documents. To my thinking it could be a proof too, that records kept officially in the log books in our union council Shadia, Punjab of Distt Mianwali would show that we are being known as Janjuas with different sub clans. Had I seen this talk page earlier I would have created my account and have replied before. Please add the text as I wanted other Janjua brothers to know that some of their family members are also residing at shadia, Mianwali. Our ancestors had migrated from Katha area of Khushab around 2 centuries ago and Janjuas of Katha are still referred to as Rajas. All the relevant history regarding family tree or pedigree was kept with verbal references and that too was memorized by a "Mirasi" known as dada in a Janjua subcaste. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajijanjua (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No problems, and I realise what it is that you want to achieve. Unfortunately, it falls foul of our policies. Your union council documents are almost certainly primary sources. It is one of the big problems that Wikipedia has got to face: that Indian history is most often documented orally and therefore does not "fit" with the Wikipedia methodology. I have no answer to that issue but, alas, we have to follow the rules as long as they exist. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why Janjua are not mentioned in 36 royal races of Rajputs

Janjuas claim to be the oldest inhabitants in Jhelum area (even upto Porus so they say) yet why they are not mentioned in the 36 royal races of rajputs?--92.21.23.195 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but this page is for discussion relating to improving the article and not for general questions. We do have a Reference desk where you may seek an answer to your query. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Tehreek-e-Janjua by Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua Published by Sahiwal Press

This book about the history of the Janjuas by Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua is provided as 3 citations in this article , will the editor who has provided these citations please also provide an ISBN number or link to this book or publisher .
Intothefire (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Published in 1982 but I've never been able to find an ISBN and I can find nothing about the publishers (although Sahiwal Press Club gets quite a few hits). I've been tempted to remove it in the past on the grounds that it seems most likely to be a minor and even self-published work by someone whose credentials are unknown. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the page Janjua Jat has been redirected to Janjua Rajput?

I would like to ask the admin why the Page Janjua Jat (which is well cited), moved to Janjua rajput. If you believe that Janjuas ar found in both Jats are Rajput, then change the title of the Page from Janjua Rajput to Simple Rajput. That would be more impartial and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I redirected it, but I am not an admin. I did so because after removing the invalid content there remained just one sourced statement which basically covers the same ground that is noted in this article, which already mentions the Jat connection. The invalid content included:

• circular references
• use of Facebook, contrary to WP:ELNO
• breaches of our policy concerning biographies of living people
• potential misrepresentation of facts, caused by using an 80 year-old source
• failures to comply with WP:V, which in the situation that applied would certainly necessitate that a reliable source be provided

- Sitush (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and use of jatland.com, which is an open wiki. It would not surprise me if you had actually just copy/pasted that article from jatland but I must admit to not checking that because it was irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You believed that Janjuas are found in both royal castes Rajputs and Jats then, rename the title to only Janjua that is simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any opinion, other than that article appeared to be inappropriate. What you think and what I think about Janjua origins/history etc is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, which is intended to be based on what is verifiable. I noticed a few minutes ago that you are probably a fairly new contributor and I did add a welcome note to your talk page. It might be useful for you to read some of the items that are mentioned in that note, and in particular WP:V and WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.184.195 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 

Yes, I am new to wikipedia but I have found many sources, talked to many people from India, Pakistan who called to be Janjua Jat. Could be help me in creating a page with proper citation. this would be really a great favor to bring something on board which is not discussed over internet before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to provide some sources then feel free and I will certainly try to help you tidy them up etc. But, please, it really doesn't matter who you have talked to in India, Pakistan or elsewhere. Hearsay is insufficient for use on this project. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Find this link , where Janjuas are categorized as Jats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_clans_of_Rawalpindi_Division#Mianwali_District

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=xQM9voN21ekC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Origins+and+History+of+Jats+and+Other+Allied+Nomadic+Tribes+of+India&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AqNLT_WUAZGGhQe9kdmcDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (Page 287, Table 9.1) A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West India Volume II, Page 368 (where writers clearly have used the word Jat Janjua)

and few more sources I am working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are sources that you used in the original article. We cannot use circular references (ie: we cannot depend on the content of other Wikipedia articles) and a mere mention of the phrase does not justify a separate article. Let's see what else can be found. It might be better if we do this at Talk:Janjua Jat but we'll see how we go. What is clear is that this topic has been discussed again and again here and nothing has yet come out of it. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, I have found some reliable sources where you can find this content clearly mentioned :"A Muhamadan Jat Clan (Agricultural) found in Montgomery " , Source : Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province, 1911, Vol II, H. A. Rose, read Page number 356

I think now you should redirect the Janjua Jat page to it's original place. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.230.0 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I am saying, if people from multiple areas and regions are talking or trying to see an article regaridng Janjua Jat, this is proof in itself. But I do understand that wikipedia need something to be used as citation. Can you tell me what could be used as a ref, so I could try to find it out.

- Garjakh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.158.91.167 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good quality books and articles from academic journals rank very highly; websites can be ok and so too can newspapers etc, but you probably need to exercise a bit more care with sources such as those. For example, it is not usually a great idea to use websites created by members of the Janjua community. The stuff does not have to be available online but anyone can challenge the reliability & so it makes sense to ensure that you can provide further information if necessary. You really should read the policy. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Gazetteer Of Gujranwala Janjuas are listed as Jatts and so are the Awans! As you cross the Jhelum everybody begins to take important and foreign titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.56.86 (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer, i did some research on Jatt Janjua, I believe that Janjua is quite Old name language of sansikrat it has been used as name in different clans, Its quite possible some one used this NAME " JANJUA: who was Jatt, Now his decedents are confused that Janjua is also a clan which is not true, So I think Jatt Janjua must not confused by that name in their Jatt families, They can be known Jatt as family of some one Janjua but it don't make them JANJUA CLAN, they are Jatt clan but not Janjua Rajputs which is a clan. Umar Raja

Why not give references? Jatt is purely occupational term as is mistri darzi tarkhan. Read ibbetsons book on Punjab castes he states that many rajputs that converted to Islam lost status and began to farm and i quote 'there are no rajas and those of true rajput descent are Jatts because they farm' and no longer call themselves rajput. It is correct to say that in Punjab all rajputs have a Jatt section whether they are bhattis, khokhars, punwars, katoch all are found amongst Jatts also. I know a Minhas/bhatti fellow and his family are barbers/hairdressers. If janjua was as old as you say it would find mention in the 36 royal races of rajputs. yet in these 36 royal races are names like gurjar(gujjars) and even Jit(Jat) but no janjuas! what does that tell you? You need to research more.

For you kind information Janjua are mentioned in Royal Races, check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.158.35 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I please refer everyone to my note near the top of this thread, timed at 15:05, 27 February 2011. Most of the comments in this section are pointless because they breach our policies in one way or another and therefore cannot be used to develop the article. For example, what you know personally is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we do not treat our own articles as being reliable sources but rather as circular references. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Janjua Rajputs → Janjua – The present title is much less commonly found than the proposed title when using GSearch and GBooks and the proposal appears to comply with WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, the article itself refers to the possibility that the Janjua are Jat rather than Rajput and, as such, the present title is POV-y. Finally, the present title should in any event be singular rather than plural because the article concerns a social group. The Janjua article is a redirect to this one. Sitush (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Many famous writers like H.A. Rose has mentioned that Janjuas are found both in Rajput and Jat. And this should be moved to Janjua rather Janjua Rajput. Garjakh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.216.68 (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Horace Arthur Rose is an old British Raj amateur writer who relied on even older Raj writers and whose full-time job was in the legal profession. He is not particularly reliable and, despite my requests in our discussions elsewhere, you have provided no other sources. If there are two groups then they can be dealt with as such. You have said yourself that there are only a few differences between these alleged groups and, like it or not, Janjua is far and away the most common name used. Perhaps that is a failing of the sources - ie: they also do not see any significant difference - but I am afraid that it is sources on which we base on content here at Wikipedia. Should that situation change in the future then it is always possible to fork. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a note---I think Garjakh was agreeing with the move--claiming there are both Rajput and Jat Janjua would seem to imply that we should have one unified article at Janjua, with mention of both claims (which is already currently in this article). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Proposal would seem to fit with WP:PRECISION, which advises being precise, but only as precise as necessary. With no other articles titled "Janjua", the one word would seem to suffice. ENeville (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why dont you called Janjua rather only Raja

I would like to bring kind notice of all Royal Janjuas, no matter you use Raja, Choudhry, Malik or Nawab. But kindly use Janjua as last name.

I have noticed that janjus in Jhelum, where they are most strong clan. They just focus on Raja not Janjua, this is the reason the many irrelevant low castes are adopting this royal title and making janjua disregarded in the society.

Majority people in the society are not well aware of what exactly the Janjuas are, because of this behavior.

This is a humble request to all Janjuas that proud of being called Janjua if you really want to save the royalty of the clan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garjakh (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:SOAPBOX. These talk pages do not exist for you to make general appeals. Please, slow down and read up on some of our policies, as I suggested a few minutes ago. A little patience now could serve you very well in the future. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Umar Janjua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.122.138 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Close: this is unhelpful, disruptive and contrary to the purpose of this talk page. Please read the informational notices at the head of this page and do not edit this discussion further. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Raja Sahib, i have been reading your article regulary, but now I realised that your article is constantly changing by some unknown researches I think its not improving but getting messed. Please stop these people to add their own opinions which are based on purely jealously and hatred and narrow thinking of against Islam, I will suggest Your should Keep your article pure as Muslim Janjua Rajputs. But if you will start making happy every one than one your article will be nothing more than a rubbish Kind Regards Umar Raja Jhelum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.184.195 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) First of all decide if you are a muslim or a rajput because rajput is title given to people who fight for hinduatva. even people from bhil and gond low castes became rajputs because they fought for brahmans religion. rajput is a hindu religious title and you muslims who call yourselves rajputs are not true muslims but force converted by likes of ghazni, sher shah suri, moghuls because you always were defeated in battlefield by muslims and NEVER committed 'JOHAR' which is way of the true rajputs on contrary youy saved your lives by converting on battlefield and giving your women to invading muslims. this is historical fact that you janjuas never defeated any invading muslim army. Now you think by calling yourselves rajputs you can make yourself higher than other muslims and all you are doing is showing that from inside you still worship hindu casteism becasue Islam has no caste all are equal in sight of God but you refuse to accept this. please go back to rajasthan where all muslim rajputs are outcastes and called 'ranghars'. first have your hindu brahmans accept you as rajputs because muslims do not need such a people or such titles. and for reference read sher shah suris nama and timurnama and see how you rajputs were forced to be cirumcized on battlefield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.76.43 (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Hello Mr. Anti-Rajput. We Rajputs are true defenders of the Indian-Subcontinent.We Rajputs sacrificed our lives, properties, honours and even our Hindu Dharma in order to save and protect the Hindu nation and the Indian-Subcontinent from foreign invaders.We will keep on defending our homeland Bharat from invaders.Rajputs spillet their blood on every inch of Bharat in order to defend it from invadres.Rajbaz (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of word Janjua

Many theories have circulated as to meaning of this word one being that they broke the sacred thread janju and became musalaman but then why would those people that never accpeted Islam still call themselves Janjua? My personal research has led me to conclude that many of the Rajputs who offered daughters to muslim invaders were excommunicated by their tribe and this led to their migration and also led to a name change. For ex the word 'Janj' means a wedding barat and i believe that those rajputs that attended the wedding in which their women were married to musalmans were outcasted and named janjua for attending the wedding. This can also be found in other rajput clans like the 'chibs' who have an ancestor called 'shadi khan'. Of course they have invented a fancy story for shadi khan and call him baba shadi shaheed and how he married Jahangeers daughter for which there is no evidence. On the contrary the musalmans were in habit of recieving daughters from conquered rajputs and would allow them to retain their rule. This was the general rule in dealing with rajputs who were conquered and is something that is not being accepted by converted rajputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.15.10 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The above comments are offensive. Somebody is making mockery of names Janjua and Shadi Khan Shaheed.These are baseless allegations.The above comment should be deleted.Forcing and blackmailing people to give away their womenfolk is badmashi and ghundadhirdi.Rajbaz (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a pointless contribution. I would encourage you to read the notices at the top of this page and note especially that this facility exists to discuss improvements to the article and is not for general discussion about the article subject. Unless you are going to provide some verification from reliable sources, your comment drifts the wrong side of that line. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sitush.Janjua is a Rajput tribe.The title Janjua Rajput should not be changed.Those non-Rajputs who are claiming to be Janjua are either mixed caste or they have adopted the Janjua name for some reason.Anyway, Janjua Rajputs belong in Rajput caste, Janjua Jats belong in Jat caste, Tarkhan Janjuas belong in Tarkhan caste.There is no need to mention Non-Rajputs Janjuas in Janjua Rajput article.Rajbaz (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Except, as per recent past discussions and a page move, this is not an article about just the Janjua Rajputs. At present, it is an article concerning all communities that use the Janjua name. Since that decision is recent, we will have to stick with it. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

RSS/Shiv Sena agenda in this article.

A number of comments in this section are attacks, are offensive, or are otherwise just generally unacceptable. None of them help improve the article, because none of them cite reliable sources. If anyone wants to actually improve the article, please start a new section and provide the sources you believe should be used and what you think the article should say; you may want to read WP:RS first. However, this page does not exist for general discussions on the topic, for soapboxing or as an internet discussion forum. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing legitimate citations and the term "Rajput" from the article. I sense a Hindhu extremist element in here. Being a Janjua from Chakwal, I know that we are nothing but Rajputs, and I have never seen a Janjua claiming to be a Jatt or something else. And I am talking about the genuine Janjuas, and not "Nais" who settle in cities and adopt different Surnames and castes. Rajput is a tribe, and means "sons of kings", it has nothing to do with "warriors who fight for Hindhuism". British have described Janjuas as "doubtless pure Rajputs", hence I don't need biased Hindhu editors on Shiv Sena pay-roll to tell me otherwise. This whole attitude is converting Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into a hate filled forum. Its because of such people that Wikipedia has lost all its credibility. Even though i am not a janjua but i have a passionate interest in tribes of pakistan i would like to ask you have you travelled to any other part where janjuas live like in gujrat gujranwala lahore? you will find many janjuas who do not claim to be rajputs. this article is written based on personal theories and has little historical proof to back up its claim. i am not the person who has edited this btw. what we have in this article is a fancy and exagerated history of janjuas without taking into consideration how tribal communites have evolved and devolved in pakistan. For example the ghummans are a very well known Jatt tribe that were descended from janjuas but according to your own researchers from chakwal/jhelum ghumman can only be a rajput when this is not the case. Also Raniyals are proud Jatt community in azad kashmir yet because some raniyals lay claim to being rajputs the Jatt Raniyals are not accpeted as being descended from janjuas either. I know Ratials who are descended from the highest rajputs 'Katoch' yet they say they are stricly Jatts. question is what is a rajput? there are no rajas or sons of rajas today. rajput was a social grade given to those who fight for hinduatva and consisted of many tribes that were grouped together and labled as rajputs. One tribe in one district claims to be rajput yet the same people from the same tribe in another district say they are Jatt so how can you deny these facts? is it necssary for every janjua to call himself a rajput or else according to you he has no right to call himself a janjua? Is this article stricly for janjuas of chakwal or is it a general article that includes all janjuas? Now to the article were can you provide me proof that Porus was a janjua or anandpal jaypal were janjuas? these are just your fanciful theories to make yourself feel unique that have no historical backing whatsoever. I would like to see the history of the tribes of pakistan written in a true manner rather than just copying pasting what we think will look fanciful for ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.86.49 (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC) First of all, I have never heard about "Janjuas" who hail from places like Gujranwala and Lahore. If someone claims that, then that should be verified. I assume you are from India, and don't know anything about Punjabi customs, and the practice by low caste people to adopt surnames of famous tribes, like for instance, almost everyone in Punjab claims to be a Bhatti Rajput, just like Black nationalists in America claim to be the descendants of Zulu tribe, and Romani gypsies claim to be the descendants of Rajputs. If your theories are to be accepted as facts, then Bhatti tribe is actually a caste lower than jatts, and Chauhans are Gujjars, as a lot of people from Sialkot, Gujranwala will tell you. Chauhan is a Gujjar surname in many areas of Punjab, so can we safely say that Chauhans are actually Gujjars then? Will a descendant of Chauhan kings from Rajasthan ever accept that? We have a family tree, that links us straight to 11th century ancestor of all Janjuas, who is known as Raja Mal. I have seen people from places like Gujrat claiming to be Janjuas, but they lack any form of a family tree or something. Janjuas of Jhelum, chakwal, Rawalpindi etc, are completely aware of their family trees. Any true Janjua will know if he is a descendant of Jodh Khan(like myself), Kala Khan(the janjuas of Matore), Khakha etc. If you can find some Janjua from Gujranwala or Lahore, who can tell you his lineage from one of the sons of Raja Mal Khan, please kindly let me know. I wish you all the luck on that. And If some Jatt tribe claims to be Janjua, then that probably means that their Janjua ancestors started marrying into other castes and lost their social class, and became Jatts, though I am sceptical about that. Then again, find me some Jatt Janjua from the original Janjua homeland of Potwar Plateau, and I'll accept the theories that you are making. Thirdly there are sons of Rajas today, and a lot of people can prove that by showing you their family trees with names of kings or cheifs written on them; it has been a Rajput custom to record their full lineages. Find me a Gujjar or Jatt tribe that have the names of their ancestors recorded in the form of family trees(ancestors before the age of Ranjit Singh). I never talked about Raja Porus being my ancestor or something, but as far as Jaypal is concerned, I am not well aware of that, but many historians, like Alexander Cunningham theorised that link. Lastly, Indians need to put their Biases aside, and treat Wikipedia like an encyclopedia instead of a Shiv Sena forum. Find me one historical primary source, that describes Janjua as a "Jatt" tribe, which someone is trying too hard to prove. And secondly I am not trying to be unique or something, that is what you think. You have a whole array of literature in this article that shows the unique standing of the Janjuas, as narrated by british historians, who tend to unbiased than most others because they are not bound to any local religion. I don't need a Hindhu extremist to tell me otherwise. It is this attitude of Wikipedia pseudo-historians, that WIkipedia is held in low esteem throughout the academia. History should be treated as history, and not distorted for political or social reasons, like a lot of Right Wing parties do. I will admit that I am not a historian myself, but people disregarding all the citations in this article are the ones who prompted me to discuss it here. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Janjuas and Awans are both listed as Jatts in the Gujranwala District Gazatteer which is written by the british and both tribes were few thousands in number. Get the book and read it you will find this info under the tribal listing section. You say british historians were not biased which is correct yet 'they' say that rajput and jatts of Punjab are of the same stock where rajput is just a social grade. Denzil ibbetson states in 'Punjab Castes' that the true rajputs became landlord farmers and hence were termed Jatts he also states that beyond the jhelum river everyone calls themselves 'raja' or rajput. Why would the Awans jhelum area say they are arabs and kutab shahis yet in gujranwala district they record themselves as Jatts. answer is simple the Awans were a jatt tribe and on accepting Islam at hands of qutub shah began to call themselves 'awan'. Your talking about low castes calling themselves bhatti and what are low castes? they belong to the dravidian family and the rajputs according to denzil ibbetson are not free from 'dravidian' mixture something he never ascribed to the Jatts or Gujjars Punjab but ascribed to them a forign origin. Yes sure your tribe has a family tree as rajputs had brahmans that were record keepers and Jatts had mirasis who were record keepers. Many Jatt family trees can be found in the book 'tribes and castes of punjab and nwfp province' but what i find odd is that janjuas have no recollection as to when they accepted islam and what the meaning of the word 'janjua' is. According to the Jhelum district gazatteer janjuas are a branch of the 'rathore' rajputs and same british writers state that the tract which is occupied by the janjuas was not their original home and the area around tilla jhelum was home to the Jatt tribe in the same book it says that the janjuas were not rulers over jatts through strength or power but through mutual respect and harmony. Now to the Gujjars who are mentioned in the 36 tribes of rajputs as 'gurjar' and also is mentioned a tribe called 'Jit' which according to james todd is no other than the Jat tribe but we have no mention of the janjuas in this list. What you seem to be forgetting is these jatts and gujjars were some of the earliers followers of Islam. In the chachnama history of mohd bin qasims invasion of sindh the jats were the first to join the arabs to fight raja daher and first to accept Islam and in islamic faith caste jaat has no place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.56.181 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I certainly have removed some of the content to which you appear to be referring. However, I am not even of a religious bent, let alone an extremist politico-religious one. Rather than write reams of text containing your opinions etc, what you need to do is produce some reliable sources. To the best of my recollection, this is the only reason why I removed content. If you continue to assume bad faith by making wild accusations against fellow contributors then you could find yourself being blocked from editing. This article is one that is subject to general sanctions, as per the notice at the top of this page: your comments are unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC) You clearly did not get my point. You don't become a Janjua, or an Awan just by saying that you are one. Did these Awans and Janjuas in Gujranwala present a family tree to the British authorities to prove their original genealogy? I have seen Jatts from Sialkot claiming to be Rajas in Rawalpindi,does that mean they are one? My old servant, a Kumhar by caste, had written "Gakkhar Rajput" in a government census, he even admits that he is not one. And you are just citing one author, yet this page is full of different citations. As far as Jatts are concerned, Jatts have very little influence in Pothwar region of northern Punjab. Majority of land in these areas is owned by Janjuas and Gakkhars,where as, Jatts are described as "tenants" by the British. They do enjoy a high social standing in the Punjab plains, but they have no such importance in Pothwar. Awans, Gakkhars and Janjuas are always described as the ruling tribes of Pothwar. As far as Awans are concerned, you cited them claiming to be Jatts in Gujranwala, but what about places like Abottabad and Kashmir? They even call themselves "qutb shahi Awan" over there. Thirdly, about the word Janjua not meaning anything; does the word Gakkhar mean anything? Does the name Cheema mean anything? Then you claimed that Jatts and Gujjars are described as foreigners, I don't get your point, is it wrong to have dravidian blood in your veins? Does having a supposedly "foreigner" origin make you better? Recent genetic studies on Jatts have shown a similarity with the Gypsies of eastern europe and Gujjars have been labelled as other backwards castes in modern day India, what does that prove then? Besides, Janjuas had- and still have, the practice of marrying into Janjuas, and other Rajas like Gakkhars etc only; can you say the same for Gujjars and Jatts? Denzil Ibettson claims that Janjuas might be foreigner to Pothwar, but what about Cunningham; he actually linked Janjuas to the Hindu Shahi emperors and called them "Aryans". You revealed your ulterior racist/political beliefs just by saying that. But I am not surprised, people of subcontinent have a tendency to politicize history. I have seen a lot of Jatt nationalists claiming renowned Rajput clans, such as Tiwanas and Khars as Jatts, which has something to do with ulterior political motives. Jatts have a very vague place in history before the Mughal era, and they have been described as Mercenaries, and not as "chiefs" who joined Muhammad Bin Qasim. Jatt nationalists claim Rajput tribes as Jatts to "feel unique about themselves", as you put it, just like black nationalists claiming ancient Egyptian kingdoms to be "black". My point being, you can't become a Janjua by just saying that you are a Janjua. I can't say the same for the Jatts and Gujjars, but to be a Janjua, you need to have a proper family history and not just claims. There is a difference between a genuine Janjua and a Nai(see Rehman Malik for more details). Janjuas and Awans are both listed as Jatts in the Gujranwala District Gazatteer which is written by the british and both tribes were few thousands in number. Get the book and read it you will find this info under the tribal listing section. You say british historians were not biased which is correct yet 'they' say that rajput and jatts of Punjab are of the same stock where rajput is just a social grade. Denzil ibbetson states in 'Punjab Castes' that the true rajputs became landlord farmers and hence were termed Jatts he also states that beyond the jhelum river everyone calls themselves 'raja' or rajput. Why would the Awans jhelum area say they are arabs and kutab shahis yet in gujranwala district they record themselves as Jatts. answer is simple the Awans were a jatt tribe and on accepting Islam at hands of qutub shah began to call themselves 'awan'. Your talking about low castes calling themselves bhatti and what are low castes? they belong to the dravidian family and the rajputs according to denzil ibbetson are not free from 'dravidian' mixture something he never ascribed to the Jatts or Gujjars Punjab but ascribed to them a forign origin. Yes sure your tribe has a family tree as rajputs had brahmans that were record keepers and Jatts had mirasis who were record keepers. Many Jatt family trees can be found in the book 'tribes and castes of punjab and nwfp province' but what i find odd is that janjuas have no recollection as to when they accepted islam and what the meaning of the word 'janjua' is. According to the Jhelum district gazatteer janjuas are a branch of the 'rathore' rajputs and same british writers state that the tract which is occupied by the janjuas was not their original home and the area around tilla jhelum was home to the Jatt tribe in the same book it says that the janjuas were not rulers over jatts through strength or power but through mutual respect and harmony. Now to the Gujjars who are mentioned in the 36 tribes of rajputs as 'gurjar' and also is mentioned a tribe called 'Jit' which according to james todd is no other than the Jat tribe but we have no mention of the janjuas in this list. What you seem to be forgetting is these jatts and gujjars were some of the earliers followers of Islam. In the chachnama history of mohd bin qasims invasion of sindh the jats were the first to join the arabs to fight raja daher and first to accept Islam and in islamic faith caste jaat has no place.--182.177.35.155 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) I am not even reading the above wall of text in full. You need to provide some proper sources, and preferably not ones written ages ago. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC) To be Rajput both parents have to be Rajput.To be white both parents have to be white.In the Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan Co. James Tod has mentioned Janjuas as Rajput, in second volume in the Annals of Bhattis.There are Hindu Tanolis.They are Chander vanshi.This was on a Hindu Rajput matrimonial Website. In royal families social mobility is downward.Rajput family members were loosing their Royal status and adopting non-royal occupations and falling into those castes.Some were marrying non-rajput women and children belonged to the mother,s caste.In the Annals of Bhattis Tod says that Bhattis passed their royal blood in many other castes through marriage. Bhatti is short for Bhataraka.Bhataraka is a Sanskrit word which means lord or warrior.Bhataraka was used by Hindu kings as a title.One of Bhatti,s seven brothers was called Janj.Tod hypothesised that Janjuas may be descended from Bhatti,s brother.This mesns janj or janju is a Hindu name. In the Quran it says that god has made people into tribes so that they may recognise each other.Rajput, Janjua and Bhatti etc. are identities.If Rajputs or Janjuas stop calling themselves rajput and janjuas then they will loose their identities.This is against Islam.In Islam Pathans. Baloch, Mughals, Sayeds, Hashmis, Qureshis, Butts and Dars use their tribal Idendtities.No body tells them not to call themselves by these names.They also use titles of Sheikh, pir,Sayed, Khan ,Mirza and malik etc.But, if Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars call themselves by their tribal names or use titles of Raja, Rana, Rai, Rao, Thakur and Chaudhry then some people have problem.Why the double standards.This is hypocracy.These people are two faced mongrels. Some Hindu Rajputs married their daughters to the Mughals.These Hindu women became Empresses of India.They gave birth to Kings and Emperors like Jahangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb.They were not concubines.They were Queens.They did not become muslim.They were allowed to keep their hindu religion.They had their temples in the muslim palaces.Mughals used to celebrate Hindu festivals.Hindus were treated as equal citizens.Hindus did not have to pay jizya.Every Hindu benefitted from these matrimonial alliances.Rajputs were the pillar that was holding the mughal Empire.When Aurangzeb tried to impose jizya, Rajputs rebelled and the Mughal Empire crumbled.tbc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbaz (talk • contribs) 12:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Denzil Ibettson also said that jatts in Rawalpindi don't like being called Jatts because of low repute attributed to that name in Pothwar area of Punjab. He also mentioned that anyone in Pothwar, who is not a sayyid, rajput, janjua, gakhar or awan, is known as jatt. As far as dravidian blood is concerned, every race in sub-continent has different levels of dravidian blood in their veins. Even balochis have a bit of dravidian blood in them. And Ibettson described Jatts and Gujjars as either turkic or indo-scythian(who were thought to be non-aryan at that time). In the same book, various derogatory remarks are used for gujjars and jatts, so don't cite Denzil Ibettson to prove any esteemed place of these two tribes. And you just made up that mutual interest and understanding part, that's how Babar described the Janjua chiefdoms. He described them as ruling in a brotherly manner. Todd used the term Gurjara for the Gurjara-pratihara Rajput confederation of Rajasthan, who later became known as Chauhans. He did not certainly list Gujjars as 36 royal clans of rajputs. As for the name Janjua not meaning anything; it is theorized to mean "janamejaya" who was a hero in hindhu mythological epics, but that's just a theory. Theories shouldn't be taken as facts. And caste names are not supposed to mean anything, they are just names lol. Does bugti or afridi mean anything? Does katoch mean anything? And as a final word, I would like to thank other proud Janjua Rajputs defending the identity of their clan. An overwhelming majority of Janjuas are rajputs, and pothwari, and almost all the colonial sources describe them as. so jatt, gujjar and hindhu supremacists should quit their propaganda campaign, and find another hobby. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC) James Tod is not a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE HAS BECOME RUBISH

Raja sahib, I have been following this article regularly, I noticed lots of changes has been taking place. I believe tittle should be JANJUA RAJPUT as it has ealier. It seems now admin is not sure about any thing, Raja saab, you have confused every thing since Jatt and Rajput issue you have mixed. I think this article has no more importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.184.108 (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We write what reliable sources say. And reliable sources say there are both Rajput and Jatt Janjua. Unless you have sources that clearly show the ones in the article are wrong, we can't remove them (and, even then, we'd probably just put both opinions). Please understand that Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions, but on verified info from reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answer, but there is one thing which is called logic and logic says there can't be both at the same time, jatt and Rajput. so in my opinion we should follow the oldest theory as source of information which narrates that Janjua are Rajputs. what you say?

We have a policy of No original research in articles. This means that articles are not written according to what editors think is logical. Articles are written according to what reliable sources say.

For historical facts, we follow mainly the books written by historians. The historians analyze the documents and make conclusions about what they mean. Then we summarize those conclusions. (and books have to be assessed to make sure that they are reliable. Old history books are sometimes outdated, and sometimes they are deprecated by newer books or by books of higher quality). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Enric Naval's basically said my point, but I'll put it in my own words: the oldest theory is, in fact, the least likely to be true. That doesn't mean we ignore it, it just means that we would never designate that as the "best" theory. More generally, you are correct that they can't be both...but it is also correct that different people have opinions about which is correct. Wikipedia's policy (it's in wP:NPOV) says that when people disagree, our goal is not to try to figure out who is correct. Our job is, in fact, on purpose, to show both sides, taking care to weight the article to match the prevalence of the theories in the real world. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims.

Janjua is a Rajput clan, and they are called Rajputs in almost all the historical sources and journalistic articles. The ancestral home of Janjua Rajputs is Salt Range, as described by various historical gazetteers. Jatts were described as tenants of Janjuas by imperial gazetteers. The so called people claiming to "Janjua Jatts" are either descendants of some Janjua individuals who married women from lower castes, or plain "nais" i'e people who claim different castes. If Janjuas can be called Jatts, then I think every other Rajput clan should be called Jatt, as a lot of Jatt clans claim descent from Rajput clans. Unlike the majority of Jatt clans, Rajputs, especially Mian Sahu Rajputs(the term used for first class Rajputs) have a tradition of keeping ancestral records. To be a pure Janjua, one must have their ancestral records. Claims alone do not determine your ethnicity. If someone from Gujranwala or Faisalabad, etc, claims to be a Janjua, he/she should know from which line of Janjua clan that individual is from. For example, a nai would never know if he's a descendant of Jodh Khan, Wir Khan or Kala Khan etc. As far as being a Jatt is concerned, I think getting called a Jatt is the biggest insult, that the real "Mian Sahu" Janjua Rajputs of Rawalpindi division have to suffer. Its not that we have something against Jatts, but "Nais" should never rob a clan's identity. So its my humble request to all the editors with ulterior motives to put aside your biases and rely on historical sources instead of personal biases and political views. An overwhelming majority of historical records, other than a book by H.A.Rose and some Gazetteer from Gujranwala, put Janjua clan as the "only pure Rajputs" of Pothwar plains. I suspect all these edit wars placing Janjuas as Jatts is an attempt by Jatt nationalists' to esteem any place of Jatts. The role of Jatts in the history of Punjab is irrelevant before the rise of Sikhs, hence the Jatt nationalists are trying to claim famous Rajput clans as Jatts. Secondly, Hindhu extremists should also rely upon historical citations instead of blind hatred of a religion or something. They should make a similar edit war against Chauhan Rajput and Punwar Rajput pages, as a few gazetteers describe those clans as Gujjars.

P.S: Use citations from reputable sources instead of personal biases on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the numerous discussions above concerning this point. We have to work within the bounds of our policies. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, why is H.A.Rose used as a chief source, and Denzil Ibettson mysteriously removed. Denzil Ibettson's work was used directly by H.A.Rose. Can anyone answer that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.142.144 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ideally we would use neither because they are very poor, but since Rose followed Ibbetson it is to be assumed that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants". We almost always prefer more modern sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

VALA KATHIAS.

In Saurashtra region, in the Indian state of Gujrat, there is a Rajput tribe called VALA Rajputs.A Vala Rajput married a Kathi woman and the descendants of this Vala Rajput are called Vala Kathis.Vala Kathis belong in the Kathi tribe and inter-marry with the Kathis..They are not considered Rajput.There are other Rajputs who married Kathi women but the children do not use their Rajput father,s tribal name, instead they use their Rajput father,s first name as their surname.This is mentioned in the book called "The Rajputs of Saurashtra", written by Virbhadra Singhji and in the fourth chapter.After so many generations the Vala Kathis have lost their pure Rajput blood and have become full-fledged Kathis.Anyway, to be a Rajput both parents have to be Rajput.

The point is that if there are people who are using Rajput tribal names but they do not call themselves rajput and are not considered rajput then they do not belong in the Rajput articles.They belong in their present castes and in the articles of their present castes.During the British rule in India some members of Non-rajput castes starting using Rajput tribal names in order to get into the British army.What is the reason given by the Janjua Jatts for calling themselves Janjuas?.Rajbaz (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As always, we need reliable sources. The reasons for calling Janjua Jatts as Janjua is because reliable sources do. While we can possibly include other reliable sources that argue against this, we won't remove the other claims. It's not unusual for a WP article to have multiple competing theoriesQwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

In the "origin and history of Jatts and other allied nomadic tribes of India", B.S.Nijjar, the author, who is also a jatt, says on page 99 about Jatts of Gujjar Khan,"many of them, borrowing Rajput tribal names, enlist in native army".On the other hand it mentions about two Rajput brothers called Yas and Kals.Yas married in his own rajput caste and his descendants are called Baju Rajputs and his brother Kals married in a Jatt family and his descendants are called Bajwa Rajputs.Both Baju Rajputs and Bajwa Jatts acknowledge their common descent.So far there are two reasons why Rajput tribal names are found in non-Rajput castes.One reason is that Non-Rajputs have borrowed rajput tribal names and the other reason is mixed marriages.Borrowing Rajput tribal names is very common.When non-Rajput people move from rural areas to towns and cities, they usually borrow Rajput and other higher caste tribal names.Whether people have borrowed Rajput tribal names or they are of mixed descent, either way they do not belong in Rajput articles.This is how caste system works, whether somebody likes it or not.It is not up to the European scholars to decide about what caste is or what caste is not. Caste is complicated subject.One has to be in it, in order to know it, to understand it and to appreciate it.Rajbaz (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

From Chronicles of early Janjuas by Hussain Khan Janjua

According to the book Chronicles of early Janjuas by Hussain Khan Janjua , the Janjuas are descendants of a central Asian tribe that once ruled parts of Central Asia and alludes to them being descended from the Juan Juan Referring to the writings of Al-Masudi (born 896-died 956) , Hussain Khan Janjua , connects the name of Jahaj the king of Kandahar to etymologies to Janjua , and mentions Cunningham equating Jahaz to Janjua and the Hindu Shahi.

Book is published by IuniverseIntothefire (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Intothefire (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

iUniverse are a self-publishing house/vanity press. They are not reliable. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Tareekh-i-Janjua by Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua

The above book by Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua is provided as a reference several times in this article . Is this a book in English or a translation is unclear .Can the editor who has provided this reference please inform .Would also like to read this book , it is apparently published by Sahiwal Press . Can the editor who put this inform if it is available on the net ?
Moreover immediately after the reference to Porus the article goes on to call the Hindu Shahis , Janjua ? where are the reliable reference or citations for this , have they been deleted ? Intothefire (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought that I had queried that source some time ago. I have grave doubts regarding its reliability even though I've never seen the thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC).

Most of the reliable references and sources from the original article have been deleted by biased editors.

The Shahi Connection

This article as well as the article on the Shahi Dynasty asserts an unequivocal descent of the Janjuas from the Shahis . The Shahi article (as it reads today )for instance states "The initial Hindu Shahi dynasty was the House of Kallar, but in AD 964 the rule was assumed from Bhima upon his death by the Janjua emperor Maharajadiraja Jayapala, son of Rai Asatapala Janjua" and the reference provided 92 has two books ?viz "^ Coins of Medieval India, A. Cunningham, London, 1894, pp 56, 62; The Last Two Dynasties of The Sahis, A. Rehman, 1988, Delhi, pp 131, 48, 49, 3001; Chronicles of Early Janjuas Dr H. Khan, 2003 iUniverse, pp 3, 5, 8, 9." . I have seldom seen two citations in one , is this valid ?

There is a good likelihood that the editor who has worked on this angle of Shahi relation to Janjua on the Shahi page may be the same editor who has constructed this angle on this page , please provide the complete quote of what exactly is stated by Cunningham . Has Cunningham stated a fact or his deduction . Since this section of the article on the Shahis , is based on the Janjua page here , I am discussing this here .

There is extensive and scholarly work available on the Shahi's . Although there could be substance in the claim made by the above two books Chronicles of early Janjuas by Hussain Khan Janjua and Tareekh-i-Janjua by Raja Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua h the . At best the connection alluded to with the Shahis can be a line or two, but must not become the basis for a primary claim , presenting an unbalanced theory . Would appreciate a response .Intothefire (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There are three citations, not two - I'm a bit concerned that you cannot even count ;) You really need to run discussions here and at the Shahi article, in part because without diffs your speculation regarding authorship etc is void and your insinuations - "constructed" etc - a little unpleasant. However, you can take it as read that iUniverse is not a reliable publisher anywhere, as I mentioned this to you here only a few days ago. It has also been suggested to you that the Tareekh is unlikely to be reliable (the reasons for that should be obvious to someone who has been around as long as you have).

I'd be interested to know the alternate theories of origin, since by querying the weighting you appear to be suggesting that there is/are some. If something is a fringe theory then we have a way of dealing with that. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There were numerous Shahi dynasties - eg: Adil Shahi, Nizam Shahi and Hussain Shahi. The "emperors of the Shahi dynasty" section needs much work and might for now be better using the word "rulers" rather than "emperors" in the heading. However, the more important issues are (a) were the named people actually of the Janjua clan rather than just sharing the name; and (b) briefly clarifying what they did or did not do. There are various cite request tags in place for the subsections and I am proposing to remove those subsections unless someone turns up with some decent verification and clarification before much longer. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

With regard to placing {{cn}} tags in sections, one pretty nasty consequence of them is that they make the table of contents very messy. The template documentation explains that this markup is intended for "specific passages", which a heading is not. It also gives a list of possible alternates for use in various situations. Ones that I use quite frequently are Unreferenced section and Refimprove section but there is rarely any point in using those when there are cn templates also placed against specific passages - it is overkill and is typical of a drive-by tagger. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed addition

An IP address just added the following:

The Gazetteer of the Rawalpindi District records, "They (Janjua) are very proud of their ancestry, make good soldiers...they are usually addressed as "Rája", and stand very high in social rank." (Sang-e-Meel, 2001, Lahore, p105).

Panjab Castes also confirms, "Dominant tribe of proud position, such as the Janjúa, have retained their pride of lineage and their Rájpút title...and always addressed as Rája." (Denzil Ibbetson, Delhi, 2002, p. 132, p. 149, p. 154)

I removed it because those "citations" don't contain enough information to identify the books....oh, actually, I just did some other searches, and I think that those not actually books from 2001 & 2002, but they must be reprints of 19th century British conqueror...and those accounts are always suspect. So, while inclusion might be possible, I'm highly likely to think it shouldn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have both books at home and they are reprints of original books and are reliable. So please refrain from removing comments that you don't have any real knowledge about. Raja Sajid Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.120.135 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't just assert that they are reliable. If they are reprints of the 19th century British colonial writings, they're 90% or higher to not meet WP:RS. Almost none of those authors actually did the fact-checking and editorial judging required by our standards. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You are not a Janjua Rajput hence you would say that if you have ever been to Pakistan you will realise that all Janjua Rajputs are addressed as Raja which is their heridatary title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.120.135 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not a Janjua Rajput. What does that have to do with the matter? Wikipedia isn't decided based upon the identity of the editors, it's about following reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes but who are you to decide that whether they are reliable or not your not an historian of any kind. The sources mentioned were written by historians way before you was even born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.120.135 (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. That page explains our rules for what is and is not a reliable source. The reason why the colonial conquerors/explorers/political leaders are generally rejected as sources is because we know that they didn't do fact-checking, nor did their publishers. Instead, they generally just relied upon the word of whichever tribe/clan they were most closely aligned to. As such, they don't meet the guidelines. If you want a second opinion, we can consult the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cast Raja Janjua

There is also a cast RAJA JANJUAin Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.41.201 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Error in the "main branches".

Main branches of Janjua are not the ones listed, and in fact the listed clans like "dhamial", "gaharwal" etc, are all small sub-clans. The main branches are from the five sons of Mal, like Jodh, Weer, Kakha etc. I'd like one of the editors to please fix this. The crux of Janjua population is found in Chakwal and Jhelum districts, and the aforementioned clans merely represent a small fraction of them. Lastly, the main branch is just known as "janjua" lol, and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.65.60 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There are often problems regarding branches, subcastes, clans, gotras etc when it comes to articles such as this. Do you have any reliable sources to support your comment? - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See Punjab Chiefs by Lepel.H.Griffin, and H.A.Rose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.65.60 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. The Punjab Chiefs is a book of over 1300 pages, so we'll need to know specifically what parts you're referring to. H.A. Rose, like almost all of the colonial authors, is probably not a reliable source, though it would depends on exactly what info you were trying to source from it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Some historical references to the story of the Janjua Rajputs...

Historical references = Raj sources - they are useless and generally have previously been removed - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

'Some historical references to the story of the Janjua Rajputs...'Bold text. Predating all that is related below, the Pandava ancestors of Janjuas were known historically for the great Mahabharata war in which Arjuna and his brothers were victorious after huge losses on both sides. "The Janjua Rajputs possess a proud Martial reputation and rank very highly as the aristocracy of the Salt Range. Their pride in their ancestry is renowned and are always addressed by their ancestral title of Raja." (Rawalpindi District Gazetteer Robertson, reprint 2001, Lahore, p105) "Their (Janjuas) exploits and reputation has earned them the regard as the most Valiant Kshatriyas (warlords) in the Punjab." (History of Mediaeval Hindu India by Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya, Cosmo Publ. 1979, p129) "The tribal system of loyalty to the clan is still adhered, and they tend to only align with other tribes of equally high social rank and reputation." (The Aftermath of Partition in South Asia Gyanes Kudaisya, London 2000, p207) “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...physically well-looking, with fine hands and feet; much given to military service, especially in the cavalry;...poor agriculturists, with great pride of race and are always addressed as Raja” (Panjab Castes - Sir Denzil Ibbetson, reprint Delhi 2002, p149, p154) "The Janjua are famed as a restless and warlike Muslim Rājput tribe." (Imperial Gazetteer of Kashmir and Jammu, Sang e Meel, reprint 2002, p9, p34) and are "doubtless pure Rājputs".(Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 14, p152) & (The Indian Village Community by Baden Henry Baden-Powell, Adamant Media Corp. 2005, p97) The Janjuas Rajputs have been recognised in Punjabi history as a 'Martial clan' and the British also viewed them as excellent soldiers and distinguished them from other tribes as"other tribes no way superior to them in courage or military skill". ('Punjab Chiefs' L.H.Griffin, 1909 Lahore, p215-7}. . The ancestors of the Janjuas Rajputs , the last dynasty of the Janjua Shahis, were mentioned by Albiruni.."as noble men of noble bearings...who always did what they said". Al-Biruni, despite living under Sultan Mahmud's grace, praises the house of Jayapala Janjua (10th Century AD): "We must say that in all their grandeur, they never slackened in the ardent desire of doing that which is good and right, that they were men of noble sentiment and noble bearing." Kalhana (13th Century AD) writes of the Janjua Shahis: "Where is the Shahi dynasty with its ministers, its kings, and its great grandeur? ... The very name of the splendor of Shahi kings has vanished. What is not seen in dream, what even our imagination cannot conceive, that dynasty accomplished with ease". The Tarikh-e-Alfi of the Ghorids (13th Century AD) mentions the rebellious behaviour of [1]Raja (Ajmal) Mal (est. d. 1230 AD) (son of Raja Dhrupat Dev of Mathura) towards the Delhi Sultanate. It records that a "Rai Mal" of the mountains between Lahore and Kabul excited a rebellion against them and intercepted communications between Lahore and Ghazni. There is still today remnants of an ancient fort in Malot, Chakwal which was initially built by the Shahis and later rebuilt by Raja Mal Janjua. It is also inscribed that the last Hindu Shahi emperor Raja Mal embraced Islam at this place. Raja Mal was also the first ruler to begin the mining of salt in the Salt Ranges of Kallar Kahar and in the Khewra Salt Mines of Punjab which is currently the world's second largest salt mine. Many prominent Muslim tribes of Potohar Plateau in Pakistan trace their lineage back to the Janjuas through the five princes of the House of Raja Mal Janjua (13th Century AD). The five princes were: Raja Bhir Raja Jodh (est. d. 1259 AD) (ancestor of Chakri/Bajwala / Darapur Janjuas) Raja Kala Raja Tanoli Raja Khakha Jodh and Bhir were born of a Gakhar Rani while Kala, Khakha and Tanoli were born of another Rajput Rani. ('Journal of Central Asia', Vol.XIII, no.1, 1990 p79). According to Lepel H. Griffin, in his famous book Chiefs and Families of note in the Punjab (Lahore, 1910, ii, p254) he writes that Raja Jodh and Raja Wir/Bhir (oldest sons of Rai Mal), "divided the country, the Maloki Dhan, between them. Jodh took the Salt Range near about the Makrach and captured the town of Makshala from a colony of Brahmans...He changed its name to Makhiala and built there a fort and two tanks for rain water. Wir (also spelt Bhir), the eldest son of Raja Mal, took the possession of Kura (also spelt Khewra) near modern Pind Dadan Khan..." [2]Raja Jodh son of Raja Mal fathered four sons: Raja Raepal (villages = Wagh , Chakri , Bajwala , Darapur, Sherpur, Pindi Saidpur, Faridpur, Pir Chak, Kot Umar, Baghanwala & Nathial) Raja Manpal (villages = Rahwali, Sawala, Makhdom Jahania, Watli, Saloi, Kotla Saidan & Choa Saidan Shah) Raja Jaspal (vilages = Kohala & various other localities) Raja Jaipal (villages = Dandot & various other localities) [3]Raja Ráepál son of Raja Jodh (est. d. 1290 AD) took possession of Makhiala after Raja Jodh’s death but while he was away at Malot assisting his nephew Raja Achharpal (son of Raja Wir, who was under his stewardship) Raja Raepal’s younger brother captured Makhiala fort in his absence. Raja Raepal extended his domain by acquiring Girjaak and Adraana forts. [4]Raja [Nuruddin] Náru son of Raja Raepal (est. d. 1320 AD) inherited Girjaak fort after his father’s death and constructed an irrigation canal in Nára which is near Nala Bunah. He ruled for 30 years. [5]Raja Jagat Dev son of Raja Naru (est. d. 1345 AD) succeeded his father and “was a contemporary of Khalji Dynasty and he also sent a brigade to Lahore to assist the Imperial Army of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq against the Mongol invaders”. (Tarikh-i-Janjua, M Anwar, 1982, p84). He enhanced and strengthened his forces and forts during his reign. [6]Raja Jasrat Dev son of Raja Jagat Dev (est. d. 1380 AD) became master of Girjaak fort after his father’s death and ruled his dominion for 35 years. [7]Raja Bhim Dev son of Raja Jasrat Dev (est. d. 1420 AD) was the chief of Janjuas at the eve of the invasion of the Salt Range area by Amir Taimur. He provided assistance to Amir Taimur and joined his forces during his conquest of India. Amir Taimur (d. 1405), the world conqueror, recognised Janjuas' military qualities and loyalty and wrote a handwritten letter (Parwana) of gratitude to them in recognition. “The Janjuas were honoured by Amir Timur for their joining him in his conquest of India throughout his campaign” ('The Punjab Chiefs' Sir Lepel.H.Griffin, 1909 Lahore). This formed the foundation for the later loyal alliance between Tamerlane's future descendants the Mughal Emperors and the Janjuas. [8]Raja Sahib Khan son of Raja Bhim Dev (est. d. 1452 AD) in order to maintain peace and stability throughout his domain “he established friendly relations with the Gakkhar chief Bir Khan of Pharyala who he treated as his half-brother “. (Tarikh-i-Janjua, M Anwar, 1988, p84) [9]Raja Habib Khan son of Raja Sahib Khan (est. d. 1470 AD) maintained his hold on Girjaak fort throughout his reign and was also instrumental in eradicating the spread of ‘tawaif-ul-mulky’ within his territory. The Mughal conqueror Babur (d. 1530 AD) recorded in his famous Baburnama that the Koh-i-Jud (the Salt Range) mountains were divided in 2 halves. One half belonged to the Janjuas, who were the traditional rulers of the peoples and tribes between Nilab and Bhera. He stated"Their rule, however, is benevolent and brotherly, they do not take whatever they want....The people also serve in their (Janjua) army....the chief is called Rai (Raja) and his younger brothers and sons are known as Malik" indicating their subjects support of their just administration and the organisation of titles amongst the Janjua elite. This branch of the Janjuas was of Raja Jodh's tribe (Raja Jodh is the ancestor of the Janjuas of Bajwala, Chakri Rajgan). The allied chief of Babur's campaign of Punjab, Langar Khan Niazi was also stated by Babur to be a maternal nephew of the Janjuas.(The Baburnama, 2002, W.M Thackston p271). The Janjua chief Malik (Asad) Hast was recorded by Babur to be about 23yrs old and "the lone ruler of the tribes and clans in the Sohan River area (Potohar Plateau)." He was invited by Babur to unite with him through Malik Hast's nephew Langar Khan Niazi (The Baburnama, 2002, W.M Thackston p271). The hand written record of Amir Timur was brought to Babur by Raja (Ashghar) Saghur Khan and Malik Hast (Asad). Babur accepted and honoured this record and allowed the Janjuas to continue their rule in the respective Kingdoms. ('Chronicles of Early Janjuas' by Dr H Khan, iUniverse 2003, p.22). The Janjuas also took part in the battles against Rana Sangha in 1527AD in which the Mughals famously defeated the Sesodias Rajputs who had allied with the Afghans against him. [10]Raja Saghur Khan Janjua son of Raja Habib Khan is stated to have been involved in charging the army of Sangha when they came out of the fortress and after overwhelming them, the Mughal allies put them to flight.(The Baburnama, 2002, W.M Thackston p377). [11]Malik Darwesh Khan son of Raja Saghur Khan was a distinguished and noted commander of the Imperial Mughal Army during Emperor Akbar's reign, he took part in a campaign to capture Prince Mirza Hakim in June 1581 (Akbarnama Abu-l-Fazl, trans by H.Beveridge, Sang-e-Meel Lahore 2005, p412). Darwesh Khan of Girjaak, Jhelum (son of Raja Sangur Khan mentioned above) had fought Sultan Hathi Khan Gakhar in Punjab (a Gakhar chief). Darwesh Khan defeated Hathi Khan famously in a decisive and courageous battle causing him to flee defeated to Basal, while Hathi's cousins Adam Khan and Sarang Khan escaped to Dangalli. Raja Darwesh Khan recovered the territory that was taken from his tribe by Hathi Gakhar.(Gazetteer of the Rawalpindi District 1893-94, Punjab Government, 2001 Sang-e-Meel Publ., Lahore). Punjab Chiefs also makes mention of Darwesh Khan as "...founder of Darapur , Bajwala , Nakki, and Chakri Rajgan branch of Janjuas, a fighting chief, who avenged many of the injuries his tribe had received from the Gakhars". The territories recovered by Malik Darwesh Khan were distributed amongst his three sons Raja Hast Khan, Raja Tatar Khan and: [12]Raja Haji Khan son of Malik Darwesh Khan who is the ‘Founding Father’ of Darapur branch. The part which formed his own Kingdom of Darapur, encompassed twenty two large villages and estates. Even to day the area is called in vernacular as 'Bai Deis' (Twenty Two Villages). The descendands of Raja Haji Khan first settled at Malikpur (today Malikpur is a small village where no Janjua resides; but almost entire landed property is held by the Janjuas of Darapur) and then shifted to Old Darapur which is now known as Dilawar. In the Bunah valley area, besides New Darapur, the main villages of Janjuas are Chakri Rajgaan (formerly known as Chakri Dhuman Khan), Nakki and Bajwala Dattan which is now known as Bajwala Kalan. [13]Malik Qaimuddin son of Raja Haji Khan ruled the ‘Bai Deis’ during the age of EmperorsAkbar and Jahangir. He participated in many royal campaigns with distinction. [14]Malik Shadman Khan son of Malik Qaimuddin succeeded his father during the reign ofBadshah Shahjahan. [15]Malik Khushal Khan son of Malik Shadman Khan was the chief of Chakri/Darapur line during the later period of Mughal dynasty under Aurangzeb Alamgir. [16]Malik Ghulam Mehdi Khan son of Malik Khushal Khan saw the declining years of the Mughal Empire and also the rise of Sikh Rule across the Punjab. Malik Darwesh Khan's great-grandson who inherited Girjaak, Raja Shabat Khan had fought under Sardar Mahan Singh Sukarchakia (father of Maharaja Ranjit Singh) in many campaigns in the late 18th century approx. 1770 AD. But upon Raja Shabat Khan's death, the Sikh chief Sardar Atar Singh Dhari assassinated his son and successor, Raja Ghulam Muhi-ud-din Khan (est. d. 1790) (Punjab Chiefs, Lahore 1909, p215). The Janjuas didn't appear to trust the Sikhs thereafter and rebelled valiantly against their rule. The descendants of Raja Jodh had continued to rule this region through various interruptions until the age of Raja Ranjit Singh (d. 1839 AD). The last ruling brothers of Girjaak fort till 1830 AD were Diwan Khuda Baksh & Diwan Nawazish Ali and Makhiala was last ruled by Raja Bagga Khan Janjua. In order to celebrate their capture of Girjaak, Sikhs built a ‘victory quarter’ (with the bricks and stones removed from the Girjaak fort) at their ancestral capital Gujranwala called ‘Girjhak’ which still stands today. [17]Malik Muhabat Mehdi Khan son of Malik Ghulam Mehdi Khan lived through the testing times of Sikh Rule which unsettled the centuries old hegemony of Janjuas in the Salt Range area. At this juncture in time, two sons of Malik Muhabat Mehdi Khan Malik Khair Mehdi Khan of Darapur and: [18]Raja Sarfraz Khan son of Malik Muhabat Mehdi Khan - Founder of Chakri Rajgaan established their respective estates. [19] Raja Baz Khan Janjua son of Raja Sarfraz Khan , Founding Father of Bajwala Kalan. He was brave warrior. He and his soldiers joined Syed Ahmad Shaaed's movement and He embraced Shahadat while fithing against Sikh Army. Note. (Syed Ahmad Shaheed (of Rae Bareli) (1786–1831), also called Syed Ahmed Barelvi, was a Muslim activist from Rae Bareli, India. and founder of the "The Way of the Prophet Muhammad" (Tariqah-i Muhhamdiyah), a revolutionary Islamic movement. His supporters designated him an Amir al-Mu'minin ("Commander of the Believers")[citation needed] and he proclaimed a jihad against the Sikhs in the Punjab. Syed Ahmad was influenced by Shah Abdul Aziz, son of Shah Waliullah and touredAfghanistan and the areas occupied by the Sikhs raising the banner of jihad and rallying the Pashtun tribes to his banner. It was only after Maharaj Ranjit Singh's death in 1839 that the city of Peshawar came under the influence of Syed Ahmads movement, due to unclarity and dispute over the next heir of the Sikh Kingdom. Syed Ahmad was captured by some locals who opposed his movement, and was killed by the Sikhs along with hundreds of his troops and followers in Balakot, Mansehra District in 1831) After the Battle of Chillianwala (13th Jan 1849 AD) and acquisition of the Punjab, the British rulers of India, quickly realised the Martial potential of the Janjua Rajputs, and designated them as a 'Martial Race'. The Janjua were heavily recruited into the British Imperial Army. “The Janjúas of the Salt Range are considered second to none in Martial Spirit and Tradition, and with the Gakkars and Tiwánás form the élite of the Punjábi Musalmáns” (The Jhelum Gazetteer 1907, Lahore Press, p254) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.129.97 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Some one hindu is messing with this page

Can some confirm it , is this article still run by the original person who was known as RAJA SAHIB, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.211.6 (talk • contribs)

This article isn't "run" by anyone. Like all Wikipedia articles, it is the result of consensus based on policies and sources. If you have some actual sources that you would like to suggest that would support changes to the article, feel free to suggest them. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not run by original person as its reliable references and sources are constantly being removed by biased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.120.135 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am agreed with you, Now we need to find out how to contact the Wikipedia management and complain about it, This person QWXYAIAN is biassed and irrelevant and he has no authentic sources arguments and proofs and he or many other Hindus like him are using our source of information against us. SIMPLE ARGUMENT IS This article is about JANJUA RAJPUTS and not about Jatts, They can set up their own article under JATTS,

AS I have checked information about Jatts, I could not find a single article of JATTS who mentioned Janjua as Jatts, Even on wikipedia No JATTS Article is accepting Janjua as Jatts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎149.241.74.51 (talk • contribs)

There is no real "Wikipedia management". Wikipedia is a community created endeavor, governed by a set of community created rules. If you want to complain about me, the fastest way is at the administrator's incident noticeboard, but I have to warn you that when you do, your own behaviors will also be scrutinized...and that my experience tells me you'll come out looking worse, given that I'm trying to require reliable sources and you're both suggesting changing it based on your own personal opinions. As for your last point, you can't just decide that this article is about Janjua Rajputs, given that there are reliable sources that say that there are also Janjua Jatts. And finally, I'm not Hindu...heck, not only am I not India, I've never even been to India. So...yeah. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have given several ref underneath, I don't think so you can have access to all these books and I am sure you are a Hindu or belongs to some kind of lower cast like kammi faimly of Janjua Rajputs so I can understand your mentality , so no worries pointing fingers would not make you one of our Royal family so I will suggest you, do your family profession work, and don't try to become some selfmade historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.55.171 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to think whatever you want, but, like I said, I've never even been to Indian. As for the sources, a quick scan through them shows them to all be British colonial sources from around 1900 (or reprints of them). Such sources are pretty much useless except as the opinions of a small number of colonial overseers who pretended to be historians without training or any sort of historical method or, really, allegiance to fact-finding. If you produce some sources that meet WP:RS, you're welcome to provide them. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sure you belongs to some kind of low class inferiority complex family , Clan history only can be defined by that clan who belongs to that, our families used to kept record verbally and written, so our statement is enough to prove, We are what we are, we don't need to give you proof, ref what we have given weather colonial or mughal or before that , it is enough to proof that our clan history is true, what you are saying its just like that IF I ASK YOU YOUR FATHER'S NAME and on your reply I can refuse to admit that and can say that I am you father, you don't belong to janjua Rajput clan or any clan so you can not not understand it, AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION YOU CAN NOT DENIED COLONIAL , MUGHAL REFERENCES , BEFORE ISLAM there is no any other authentic sources which proof some thing is true or fals, NOW YOU CAN TELL US WHICH KIND OF PROOFS YOU WILL ACCEPT, PROOFS from MAHABHATATA according to Hindus it was written 1.5 million years ago lolzzzz

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.168.84 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC) 

Please read WP:V. This is Wikipedia; that is our policy. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Some more of Sanpals descendents traced

Hello sir after doing some research i have come across following information on Janjua sub-tribes. One is this family tree of the Narma rajputs. Which confirms Ghumman and Raniyal as their brother tribe but also shows few more tribes like the Thathal and Narma as also belonging to this tribe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Narma_tree.jpg Also the Ghanjial are Janjua descent found in many numbers in Gujrat, Sarai Alamgeer also in Muree hills. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.166.87 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed the following paragraph.

Removed the following paragraph: "The detailed document recording the administration of Mughal Empire under Akbar, refers to the Janjuas as a tribe conquered by Afghans", which was cited with an Express Tribune Op-Ed article.

I read the Ain-e-Akbari, and it mentions no such thing. Perhaps if such a thing was mentioned in certain translations, then people can share it. Newspaper Op-Eds are not reliable sources of information any way. Secondly, Babur mentioned Janjuas to be rather independent people. It's highly unlikely that they got conquered by Afghans during Akbar's era as no such incursions are recorded anywhere in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.32.94 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Janjua" can now be found at Talk:Janjua/Old history. Graham87 12:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)