Template talk:Ethnic and social groups of the Punjab/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User Street Scholar

This template should not be blanked! and delete tag attached to it without a discussion on why it should be deleted --Street Scholar 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ancient Kshatriya tribes"

Hi - I agree with Rajatghai that this tag should not be used, owing to the controversial and unreliable nature of information. Satbir Singh should provide some reliable sources in order to prove that a consensus of scholars believe these tribes are Kshatriya. Quite frankly, I don't think any tag should be used at all for any of these tribes and castes - it is simply sufficient to describe them and "castes and tribes," and just name the respective groups without further categorization. This will help reduce the length, confusion to the reader and other users and controversial tags. This Fire Burns Always 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mr This Fire Burns Always 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC). What do you mean by reliable source? Do the ancient Sanskrit sources like Manusmriti, Puranas, Panini's Ashtadhyayi, Mahabharata are unreliable?. If these are unreliable on the Kshatriya statususes of these and other ancient people, then what sources do you think are more reliable and be quoted?

Your point is funny as well as uncivil - which version of the Hindu scriptures would you refer to and consider the correct one? Do you know where Vyasadeva's original work is, what it reads like? Is an English translation necessarily inferior to a Hindi/Sanskrit version? This Fire Burns Always 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling someones valid point "uncivil" is personal attack.user:Rama's Arrow is just trying to twist the matter.Can he specify-- Do you know where Vyasadeva's original work is, what it reads like? Is an English translation necessarily inferior to a Hindi/Sanskrit version?.I don't think he has any point to make.Holy---+---Warrior 07:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr This Fire Burns Always 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not uncivil, but you are little bit tilted off the neutral. Probably you may tell us better where Vyasadeva's original work is. There are more than two main versions of MBH and all of them refer to these people as Kshatriyas. Even Ramayana versions refer to some of them and depict them as Kshatriyas. Panini's Ashtadhyayi, Puranas, Kautilya's Arthashastra also say the same thing. Of course, there are minor vatiations in the various recensions of these ancient texts as they went down the road and were redited. But the basic point is : they all refer to these tribes as Kshatriyas. So these are other sources which agree with Mahabharata. Are all these ancient sources unreliable? They sure specify many of these tribes as Kshatriyas.

And who said the English Translations are inferior to original Sanskrit Texts?. But the translations are after all translations and may not depict the original intent of the original writer. Hence you have to depend on translations from more than one translator for better perception.

Have a good day

Sze cavalry01 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: DELETE this template if the caste war is feared on this account.

Regards

Sze cavalry01 16:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my intrusiuon here. If Mr Sze cavalry01 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) excuses me, I would like to put the following few lines to the attention of our Scholar(!) friend Mr Rajatjghai 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) as well his to his understudy Mr This Fire Burns Always 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) ( Mr Rama's Arrowhead).

Even Ashoka’s Rock Edicts qualify the Kambojas as the bold Kambojas (See : India and Buddhism (Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, Vol. 10, Sacred Books & Early Literature of the East) , 01 September, 1997) - p 21, Charles F. Horne.

COMMENT ON ABOVE REFERENCE FROM CHARLES F. HORNE:

The epithet BOLD can only apply to the true Kshatriyas or warriors and not to the Mungfali (pea-nut) sellers or to the Mahajanas. Do you agree Mr Rama's Arrow? This inscriptional reference does reinforce other scriptural reference already quoted in favor of the Kambojas etc.

Many compliments and regards to Rama's Arrohwead.

Satbir Singh 02:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

LET IT INDEED BE THE END

Mr Ghai is in his true Kshatriya form

Whoa!Whoa!Whoa! Till now I was holding myself from making any personal remarks. But this gem above has really awakened the Kshatriya in me.

THE BIG CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG. I had long suspected this but now, the above humongous comment has proved it to be true.

So, the whole plan was to highlight the great Kamboj Kshatriya warriors of old. I should have read this subtle intent long ago when I first came across articles of the "Original Researcher" (gee! Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, Ramachandra Guha, P N Oak, Khushwant Singh, Kartar Duggal and other Indian historians of all hues whther right, left or centre, now have company in the form of a brand new mambar in their midst), the "great Kamboj warrior", Satbir Singh. Saka Nanakana, Baba Amar Singh Nibber, Bhai Mahi Singh Sunam etc. etc. had a most obvious thread linking them all: Kamboj.

I should have also understood when I saw the "original research" of "another great Kamboj warrior", Mr. Size Cavalry no 1: Kamboj, Kamboja, Kambojas, Kamboh and Kamboj.

Well, if This Fire Burns Always is my "Understudy", then these two "researcher"-warriors must be visiting fellows at some Ivy League University.

But, if that is the case, the point that befuddles me is why do they talk in the boorish tones of hutzels? Are they studying in Manhattan or Mandi Gobindgarh? Frankly, I have no idea.

Perhaps that is why, This Fire Burns Always avoided replying any further to their "war-cries".

Well, fellows, I won't repeat my "Ramayana or Mahabharata" again on the bone of contention. Another "Understudy" of mine has advised me on the matter ("reliable source" available here User talk:Rajat Ghai) and I have reached the following decision:

I do not want other people to suffer at the hands of two rustic yokels who want to indulge in caste-wars, for my sake. My "understudy", ImpuMozhi had advised me long ago about the dangers of participating in matters pertaining to caste. I was a cad since I did not listen to him then. Now, two hoodlums have proved him right.

As an afterthought, I am extremely ashamed of myself that I have to belch out so much bile in this post, that I have to stoop to the level of a hooligan. I would have never done this had it not been for the above post.

I hereby request the administrators to DELETE this template. I have learnt my lesson. I do not want to waste my manhours, my energy and my money on trying to convince a pair of nincompoops about the importance of neutrality. I have many other useful pursuits on this portal as well as in my personal life.

Ah yes! the two "gentlemen" whom I have abused so much in this post are most welcome to vandalise my user page. And after you have had your fill, I hope to Heaven that never may our paths cross again. "Thank you" (my last courtesy). Rajat Ghai 07:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ON THE KNOLWLEWDGE/SCHOLARSHIP OF MR GHAI

Wikipedia readers, it is amusing to look at the following link and judge yourself the level of scholarship and knowledge of this Oxford or Harvard graduate----—our dear scholar friend called Mr Ghai. LINK: [1]

THE KAMBOJ ARE CRAFTMEN!!!!!!!!

Not that the “craftmen” category is any thing despicable or degrading, but is it correct to classify the Kamboj community as community of the CRAFTMEN as this scholars did? .

THESE MODERN HISTORIANS:

Though that is enough to reflect on the level of knowledge of this gentleman, but one instance more: At some other place, he states that the numerous evidence contained in ancient Indian Sanskrit texts on these ancient tribes is not true and declares that the facts contained in the Epics and numerous other ancient Sanskrit scriptures are unbelievable. Picking the lead from him, another modern Wikipedia historian This Fire Burns Always 05:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (Rama’ Arrow) too gave his verdict that the Epic and other ancient Sanskrit evidence on the Kshatriyahood of these people is questionable and unreliable!!!!!.

Well, unlike this gentleman, Mr Ghai who seems to have lost all his moorings and bearings and poise, we will refrain from conferring upon him the epithets of educated fool, clodhopper or hillybilly Jake or the like, not because he may have been an Oxford or Harvard graduate but because it is too degrading to stoop to the depth of this gentleman.

Let these highsounding words form the vocabulary of this Oxford or Harvard scholar Ghai SahibRajat Ghai 07:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC) .

Good luck gentleman in your future career!

With greatest regards

Satbir Singh 14:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (Graduate from JANDIALA GURU University)

THESE EXTINCT SPECIES

Well. So, Mr. one-eyed-Jack (SS - pun intended) is not the nitwit that he seems at first glance. Perhaps that is why he did not show everybody the version prior to the one that he is tom-toming as "evidence" about my "faulty scholarship". It was User:Vikramsingh who first changed the category to CRAFTSMEN. I had earlier named it as "Indo-Scythian groups". Vikramsingh was of the view that it was a very speculative term and hence changed it to Craftsmen. Poor chap! he did not know that kamboj "tribals" still exist and two of them were marauding this site and noticed the tag and sounded the shofar.

Also, everybody can have a look at the history page of the template. After, SS and SC (pun unintended) created the great "Surviving Ancient Kshatriya Tribes family", the only groups left in it were Tarkhans, Lohars and Ramgarhias. SS's allegation is that I don't know the derogatory nature of the term "Craftsmen". Well, I do. Because in subsequent versions, I changed it to "Tarkhans and Related Groups." However, in the interluding period, nobody from any of these groups acted as "Vandalists" (that is how SS pronounces the term. The extinct Vandals of Europe must be turning in their unknown graves throughout the continent).

As for his poodle, horse-breeder (oops! Cavalry as per historical facts) who calls me a mental case, well I surely do not expect a common heathen to know the subtleties of the human brain, neuro-science, psychiatry or human psychology (Even I don't. but I surely wan't to, so that I may learn what exactly is wrong with me.

Yes, I said that Kam bhoj and Co. are historical Kshatriya tribes as Calvary (Lord! I am so sorry again. I took the name of a holy site here. May He forgive me as well these who do not know what they are doing), Cavalry said. But I also argued that many other groups claim that status as well. I have repeated this time and again. But here it is once more. If K & Co. must be put in that category, then it would be better to make a nice little cat. by the name of "Kshatriya groups" and represent everybody. After all, we are a democracy right?

About Cal's "evidence" that I am a mental case because I called him and SS as "hoodlums", "hoologans" and "gentlemen" in the same breath, well what can I say. Nag, this not the Gole Bug or Da Vinci that you have to take so much time to unravel it. Perhaps, SS can help you in understanding what I really meant since he's a JG Graduate and a serious researcher.

Another thing. I would really like to make a referral to the SGPC, about SS and have him declared as a tankhaiyya, since he has violated such a cardinal rule of the Panth - non - belief in the Caste System. But then, anybody who is in the know, has full knowledge about "this historical fact" - that most Sikhs continue to believe in caste. SS and SC' espousal of the "great Kamboj tribe" has shattered the great myth that they do not. Perhaps, SS and SC should visit the talk page of Hinduism and the Sikh Panth and know about how two of their co-religionists are disputing "this historical fact." Proves one thing very clearly, which has been said time and again by "Scholars" (no reference to SS and SC here): Even religion has not been able to break the stranglehold of caste on South Asian society.

And lastly, my vocabulary and my scholarship! Well, I am happy that all this has at least caused SS (Would not say this about SC) to at least pick up a dictionary and leaf through it for- well perhaps the very first time. Natives, do not teach me the Sahib's tongue. I will learn it on my own. To me, Angreji is as dear as the other three Jabaans that I speak - my Maa Boli (Punjabi), Hindi and Urdu. And yes, I surely do not need certificates from anybody about whether I am a "Scholar" or not. Hell! I have never made any claims about "Original Research" (Do not return this argument back to me like the nakalchi baandars that you are.

All the best in your career as "Original Researchers."

Have a nice day (Hah! Aethe main vi SS di thodi ji Rees kad rahe haan).

The mental case - 203.187.198.110 19:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Ghai

Your explanations are just like those of a gulty student to his teacher or master--- lot of lame excuses. If you could immediately spot and revert my edits the very next moment, how come you did not notice the edits of Vkiramsingh which now you admit were not right? That shows the edits of Vikramsingh had your tacit approval and blessing. Did you yourself take out the disputed classes out from the irrelevant category and placed in different category or it somebody else did it?. As far as I could see, you never did it yourself.

And perhaps you have done your Masters in A.L. (Abusive Language); that is why you continue to scatter shits and dungs around like a dirty bitch or a dirty donkey and to let your saucy tongue badmouth at others. This indeed also tells me that you are sure mentally very very weak, and impulsive too, and definitly needs immediate help from a good psychiatrist; Dear friend Ghai ji, I'm very serious in my recommendations, please must go and consult your Mental doctor; and dont take it lightly. Very sorry, I really feel great sympathy and pity for you and your state of mind.

And looking at your weak state of mind, I again refrain from paying you back in the same coins. Do take it seriously please. And take it also a final warning to either control your bitchy toungue else you will see the hell out of it you little badmouther in the disguise of a polished gentleman. (Fer tere sare puns te shuns main vichey he ghasod devanga)

Best regards again

Satbir Singh 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A Pitiable or Mental Case?????

Yes, I have also carefully gone through series of posts of Rajat Ghai 07:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC) . It is indeed amusing to know that:

In one vein, Ghai ji calls it a historical fact that the Abhiras, Gurjaras, Yadavas, Khasha and Kambojas were/are Kshatriyas, but in the next vein, he also says that it is untrue and unbleivable!.

Again, I have also noted that in one vein, he calls Satbir Satbir Singh 14:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC) as well as myself (Sze cavalry01 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)) as Hoodlums, Hooligans, Rogues etc but in the next vein, he also compliments us as Gentlemen!!.

This Kshatriya guy sure's lost his sockets and gone all topsytury.

Sze cavalry01 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

DELETEIf someone creates caste and tribes of Punjab and stamps it everywhere,I am afraid what will happen if every state create such templates and stamps on every page,I think there will be more than 10 templates on every caste page,ATLEAST.plz discourage this practice.Holy---+----Warrior 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well. I am really smiling at this one. I have seen User Holywarrior's contributions to various pages.... Khatri, Rajput, Kayastha, Bhumihar, Yadav.... Anyway, I won't get into that one. I agree however, with your point on this template being made and stamped by someone (that's me) everywhere. However, that can be tackled at a later date. Aren't there enough talented people on this site who know how to give a good look to a page sans any clutter? The question here though is of neutrality on which I am sure you would agree with me is the true essence of this portal. Let's solve this point first. The point you have made is a very valid one indeed but it can be solved after the neutrality issue is solved. Thank you. Rajatjghai 18:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Yadavs, Gujjars, Khash, Kamboj, Pahluv etc are indeed the modern relics of ancient Kshatriya Tribes of the Yadavas, Gurjaras, Khasas, Kambojas, Pahlavas respectively. It is not irrelevant if their ancient identity is reflected in this Template. Either this template must reflect this ancient identity for these few surviving ancient Kshatriya tribes (numerous others having already become extinct) or ELSE IT BE DELETED FORTHWITH . AS someone else also stated here, it is not fair to suppress the historical facts contained in ancient texts like Manusmiriti (X/43-44), Kautiliya's Arthshastra(11.1.1-4), Mahabharata (13/33/20-21; 13/35/17-18), Harivamsa (14.1-19) and Numerous other Puranas, Ashtadhyayi (4.1.168-175) and other ancient Sanskrit literature.

REQUEST TO THE ADMINISTRATORS

The template must be taken out from the view until the issue is resolved.

Satbir Singh 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with satbir,Others have no point to make or perhaps no knowledge of their subject as is reflected from their comments.There is a lobby in wikipedia who have been accustomed to hijack pages bullying others by simple majority,I think they have caught the wrong person here who were expecting a free ride.I myself have faced many such trials in the past.I wonder why this "Ghai" guy who differed with me on many ocassions never showed his true face.I always tried to know the true face of anonymous vandals on the pages he is describing.Holy---+---Warrior 07:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows who the real Vandal is. And everybody also knows who is well-known for ruining pages related to caste-groups just because they have some personal grudges, biases and prejudices. I never argued with you earlier because I myself never wanted to get into the hassles of caste. I know you are a true "warrior" who has taken it upon himself to take-on "upper-caste villains" like me. But, in this case you are completely wrong. Because you haven't really understood what the whole bickering is about. Trust me, I am not the "Tilak Taraazu aur Talwaar" monster of old. In fact, here I am arguing just for the sake of neutrality. I have only made the simple point that each group should be referred to by their names than by their (assumed or real) Varna status since it is a highly contentious issue. I gave your example because I saw you disputing the status of the castes that I have referred to. So have many others. But anyways, I really do not expect people like you, the two others, Sanjayji, Rajeshji et al. to understand all this. About your saying that I want to hijack the page, well: Ulta Chor Kotwal ko Daante.

Is your interference here by anycase because of my mentioning yours and Sanjayji's name in the various posts I sent to editors and administrators?

And yes, i have at least the courage to write down my family name (Since you have put it in quotes). People like you (as I have seen from the talk pages) do not even want to reveal that. 203.187.198.110 20:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for admitting you are the vandal(I can read between the lines) on these pages,but whatever I have done,I never do in hiding as you often do.You surely have communicated with me,in the same manner as you are doing now (every sentence bears your very signature) both on wiki and off-wiki.Because you don't have courage to sign your post,or show your true face you are hiding behind a proxy,which you often do.If you are following me for a long time you should have known my family name--I need not shout it-we are known for being unique.Holy---+---Warrior 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Declaration

To Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) ,

I, Rajatjghai, hereby solemnly affirm that I will not engage in another revert war with Satbir Singh or any other editor for that matter until all matters of dispute pertaining to this page are discussed and a common consensus is reached. I also affirm not to violate the "three-revert rule" again. Sincerely. Rajatjghai 06:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks like some kind of record! 80-90RR? Blnguyen | rant-line 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to give my comments on the ongoing dispute here. Though I will try to do some limited research and give my inputs if possible, I am not very hopeful as my knowledge on the subject is very limited. In a lighter vain, someday when this dispute dies down, I am going to link this to my user page as an example of the tradition of fighters calling it a day after the longest revert war in a single day that I saw yet. I hope admins are a bit softer as the page is already protected and atleast one of the parties has sought intervention in various places. -- Lost 07:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to block. Further damage has been prevented due to protection. Both users seem to have gotten carried away that's all, and true, this is too humourous for punishment.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for inviting me here, but I really have no knowledge of these religious or tribal affairs of India. I'm just patrolling some of them for personal attacks as it seems as though some areas are unmoderated...hopefully once there is proper dialog, something fruitful will eventuate. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Yadavs, Gujjars, Khash, Kamboj, Pahluv etc are indeed the modern relics of ancient Kshatriya Tribes of the Yadavas, Gurjaras, Khasas, Kambojas, Pahlavas respectively. It is not irrelevant if their ancient identity is reflected in this Template. Either this template must reflect this ancient identity for these few surviving ancient Kshatriya tribes (numerous others having already become extinct) or ELSE IT BE DELETED FORTHWITH . AS someone else also stated here, it is not fair to suppress the historical facts contained in ancient texts like Manusmiriti (X/43-44), Kautiliya's Arthshastra(11.1.1-4), Mahabharata (13/33/20-21; 13/35/17-18), Harivamsa (14.1-19) and Numerous other Puranas, Ashtadhyayi (4.1.168-175) and other ancient Sanskrit literature.

REQUEST TO THE ADMINISTRATORS

The template must be taken out from the view until the issue is resolved.

Satbir Singh 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm typical Indian Voter

I don't know if I can possibly contribute much to the discussion but I believe that the template should NOT be deleted. Unitedroad 08:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

A typical Indian voter votes for the X party or the Y party, without the least knowledge of their policies or programs; but votes he must! If one asks him why did he vote such and such party, he pleads ignorant and lost. Same is the case here with this gentleman Mr Unitedroad 08:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

Also like a typical Indian voter, the guy is honest enough, since he frankly admits that he's no knowledge of what is going on here but he still he must vote one way or the other since he believes so! Bravo and seven cheers our Indian voter!

Sze cavalry01 17:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am expecting atleast one more guy to vote who is known for voting with these people.Let us wait for D' boy.Holy -- + -- Warrior 11:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have been following this Template and the ongoing discussion on this forum. As for as my self is concerened, I had been a regular contributor to the Indiancivilizatioon for some time. The problem here is intolerance and tough attitude of the different contribiutors involved here. As Rajat ghai had stated in one of his earlier notings that if Kshatriya status is ascribed to Abhiras, Yadavas, kambojs, Khashas-- then it could turn out to be a caste war if the castes like the Jāts, Rājpūts, Khatris and some others put forwarsd their claim to Kshatriyas.

I have had really a bad experience of this sort on Indiancivilization when one fanatic came in and tried to sabotage the ongoing discussion on similar lines. The best and only possible alternative here is to delete the template if it is likely to create divisive and provocative tendencies leading to caste war as Rajatghai himself or somebody else had stated in one of his notings (which he had howeewver later deleted)

Lajwantsingh1965 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

people

right

i think the person above me is right.. i've seen that thing (excatly) before but some one deleted it so.. thats all i have to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.166.150 (talk • contribs)

'Toor'

isn't Toor also a Rajput clan as well as Jatt? some Toors refer to themselves as Rajput Jatts . i thought it was primarily Rajput Jatt for that reason

RE: Toor

Toor is an Punjabi Jats Clan clan. They are originally Jats from the Tomara clan who became powerful and known as Rajputs.

Tarkhan and other related groups

Semi-Protected

There has been heavy IP vandalism again, so I have semi-protected the page. I'm not doing full-protection because there has been some major user contributors to the template, and I would not want to prevent them from editing the page. However, if you are an IP and you would like to edit the page, either post here, or contact me on my user talk page, and I will place the material in the template (if approved) accordingly. Thanks. Nishkid64 13:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghakhars

Will the administrator please also include Ghakhars in the list . Gakhars Hindus Sikhs are found among both Khatri and Rajput Punjabis. As a matter of fact this is also the case with several other Punjabi Castes such as Sayals for example. Contemporary Sayal families from Jallandhar are Khatris .Intothefire 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You will find the Gakhar link in the "Others" Section of the Template. It gives an exhaustive account of the history of the group though I am afraid it mostly dwells on the Muslim Gakhars of Rawalpindi, Hazara and other northern districts of Punjab (Pakistan).

I also agree that names like 'Gakhar' and 'Sial' are found among more than one Rajput Punjabi caste. As a matter of fact, many last names in the Punjab region are shared by dominant groups such as Jats, Rajputs, Gujjars, Ahirs, Khatris, Aroras, Mohyals, Tarkhans and Kambojs. This is especially true for Jats and Rajputs where clan names are almost identical for both. But for brevity's sake, let's include names in the those categories where they are most prevalent in the template. For e.g. 'Sial' is a lastname found in Jats, Rajputs and Khatris. But in the template, the name is included in the Rajput category, since it seems to be most prevalent among them. In the article however, this point of the name being prevalent in all three groups is clearly mentioned. I wish first time editors would understand the gravity of this statement and not include names in more than one category. We are no Cunnighams or Todds, but at least by this template, we can explain to non-Punjabis, the great cultural diversity of this region, which has served as a gateway for most invasions into South Asia. I would request experienced editors, well-versed in Punjabi history to take over the supervision of this template and monitor it closely. Everyday, more names are added by editors (including myself), making the template more messy. A well-established team should take over so that the template achieves its goal.

Cheers.

'Thanks! appreciate your response :) also see Gakhar Hindus Intothefire 13:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User Bineet

I see you have added Nayyar to Jats . Always thought Nayyars were Khatris . One of the old families and prominent textile company of Amritsar was LD Velvet and Castle Mills were ownned by the Khatri Nayyar families of Amritsar . You may consider correcting your edit then !

Addition required in jatt article

````In jatt article there is no information about Basra jatts.Which is a very important cast of jatts.Kindly include information and description about basra jatts```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.128.27.224 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC).