Talk:Janjua/Archive 1

Cleanup

January 2006

I got an e-mail requesting that I review this article to see if it was sufficiently cleaned up. I re-tagged the article with more specific templates that can be removed as specific problems are resolved.

• NPOV: The sections "Nature and characteristics" and "Janjuas today" make broad, unsourced generalizations about an entire ethnic group. It would be more NPOV to report concrete demographics for which sources can be cited.
• Context: How much of the history here is legend vs. well-attested history?
• Context: None of the historical events and people mentioned have dates associated with them.
• Context: There needs to be an intro before the first section which gives an overview of the entire article. It should give a clear definition. Is this an ethnic group? A very large extended family? What is "Lunar Race"/"Chandra Vans"?
• References: The links to pages in Google's cache need to be converted into direct links, or into archive.org links.
• References: Most of the inline links should probably be converted into footnotes. I would suggest the Wikipedia:Footnotes style.
• Context: More geographical and historical context for those not familiar with the Indian Subcontinent would be helpful. Links to related Wikipedia articles in strategic places would also be an improvement.
• Copyedit: I have fixed most of the bits that did not align with Wikipedia and standard English guidelines for italicization and quoting, but I may have missed some things. The writing is in general a bit rough and needs re-phrasing.
• External links: I don't know why these are here. They should probably be moved to articles about these topics, and this article should link to those.

-- Beland 16:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All the above has been addressed one by one over the past few months. The article is now a complete change from what it was. Citations clearly added, fully referenced and sourced. Language has been improved with a brief explanation of wordings etc. The section of characteristics etc has been removed and replaced with general tribal behaviour as been recognised and distinguished to this clan by sourced historians. Historical and geographical data also been added with links to other pages an clans wherever possible. The legends are clearly stated as legend (general Hindu beliefs) and the well attested history is again fully referenced and sourced.--Raja 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

December 2006

Im not sure what state the article was in when the tag was removed, but it is a complete mess now.

• non-notable "famous people"
• Lack of sources (possibly mostly with the above)
• quotes that aren't wikified, and are in fact bold

Probably a bunch of redundant info too, but it needs looking at Metao 12:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The list of non-notable "famous people" just keeps getting longer. My guess is that people are adding friends/relatives etc. Wikipedia isnt the place for that. Id like a consensus on whether this section should be removed, kept, trimmed, or moved to a separate article. With that done, cleaning up the quote mess might be a less daunting task. Metao 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bold, and removed all of the prominent people who didnt have a Wikipedia page. This seemed like a reasonable starting criteria for notability, and this section was definitely the place to start as part of a cleanup. Admittedly, some of the deleted people probably deserve a Wikipedia page, but this page is about Janjua, not a list of people who are notable because they are Janjua. If you re-add to this section, may I suggest you first consider if the person is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, and if so, perhaps create a stub for them as well as adding them to the list. If the usagelist gets too long, create a new page! Metao 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The name list was ever increasing and mega KB space was being used up! So thank you for your input. Ultimately, it's an encyclopedia, so thats the context of the work to be done, and I am in greement with your actions. However some of the people were very prominent in their fields which given some time I will create wiki articles for and incorporate into the article in wikilink form, or as you suggested as a list of notables instead of into this article. Can you help suggest the correct way to incorporate the quotations into the article? (any example pages from wiki would be useful, I'll pick up the technique from that.) This article was pretty much written as best as a novice user can do Im afraid! Thanks for your interest and happy holidays :-) --Raja 14:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your agreement. Im sorry for removing the legit people (it was clear that there were a lot that I did remove), but there was not really any other way to do it without me spending a couple hours playing with google. It occurred to me that, while I had seen it done, I had never done a quote before. So I did a quick search for "quote" and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quotation. ;) The category for templates would be the place to look - I imagine you can find a style in there which would fit. For the inline comments, Im not sure what the standard is... but keep in mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations as well. Metao 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have completely wikified the article as best as possible. Quotes have been the main priority as well as footnoting the references etc. Complete change of format also. Therefore, tidy up tag removed.--Raja 18:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

General

Given that the Tanawalis - or Tanoli - link with Janjuas is very dubious to say the least,and at best only valid for a very small minority it therefore, is imperative to address this in text so that the reader is not misled into thinking this issue as non-contentious and thus factual. I have therefore, added this to the article in the appropriate section. I have also amended the section on Tanolis by deleting the quote from The Imperial Gazetteer of the North West Frontier Province as on the relevant page it does not make any mention of Raja Tanoli or Raja Mal. Instead the origin of Tanolis is attributed to Yousafzais and the Barlas Mughals. Hence, the misquote has been deleted. --User: Pakhtun Tanoli 14:47, 15 November 2006

Reply to Pakhtun Tanoli

The above user is a vandal beyond doubt and a POV theorist whos views have not been backed by any credible source. I will however endevour to challenge his assertions;

Given that the Tanawalis - or Tanoli - link with Janjuas is very dubious to say the least,and at best only valid for a very small minority it therefore, is imperative to address this in text so that the reader is not misled into thinking this issue as non-contentious and thus factual.

I agree, hence the article has been changed to reflect this. But the interesting thing to note here, is that an admission has been made by someone till now denying it, lol.

I have therefore, added this to the article in the appropriate section. I have also amended the section on Tanolis by deleting the quote from The Imperial Gazetteer of the North West Frontier Province as on the relevant page it does not make any mention of Raja Tanoli or Raja Mal. Instead the origin of Tanolis is attributed to Yousafzais and the Barlas Mughals. Hence, the misquote has been deleted.

Not correct. The references have been provided side by side where the info relating to these claims have been made (i.e. Raja Tanoli), hence your deletions are left to be either naive or malicious to say the least. But nice try though.

I will also print here the reply I gave you last month;

a) The sources that I quoted, I actually have copies of them to back up proof,so I am surprised that you question them IF indeed you have their copies as you state. I can even post a picture here of the texts in question for the ones you have questioned if you would like? I dont believe you anticipated this offer, but I more so dont believe you have consulted the texts yourself as YOU suggest.

b) The Janjua have no need to use another's history seeing as their own history is fully referenced and sourced as was this article until you starting inputting nonsensical 'point of view info' without any referenced citations. But regarding your delusion of Tanolis baring no attachment at all to Janjuas, it is claimed elsewhere (not by me or any other Janjua solely) of this connection and it's synonimous relevance to each other yet again [1] were this not the case then why are people mentioning it?! I dont agree all Tanolis are Janjua, but there are true Raja Tanoli descendants (real Tanoli Janjuas) who have genelogical tables showing this and have been mentioned by even Mughal Jehangir, so where you claim that it doesn't show on the Nawab's genelogical table I cannot understand BECAUSE had he actually had a genelogical table in the first place, then surely the Barlas Mughal or Abbasi theories would be put to rest would it not!

c) You have been 'revert warring' an article without any discussion at all. I have incorporated your Pashtun origin theory into the article and you completely deleted the Janjua theory? Thats rather uncivil and immature considering there isn't any mention of a 'Tanoli nation' in Hazara pre colonial era texts.

d) Before accusing me of any nonsense please see this link [2] which is undoubtedly a mention of a Tanoli Punjabi Musalmaan, so before badmouthing Punjabis, read your OWN history properly. And in case you call that a one off, here is Subedar Kalandhar Khan of the 91st in his full Tanoli glory [3]

If you want a proper discussion, with respect, according to wiki ethics I will engage with you (though I am very busy, I will Inshallah accomodate you) but if you want to be abusive (which till date I have NOT been towards you) then I will disengage and report you.

The text Chronicles of Early Janjuas by Dr Hussain Khan is written by a TANOLI JANJUA, so how can you ignore it? He was a professor of history at Peshawar University no less, so chances of a deluded Punjabi cannot be accepted (I can print his background from his book on here with an actual picture too if you want proof?). Keep things in perspective. I dont believe every person who calls themself a Tanoli is a genuine Tanoli by descent, they are all geographically named instead of by blood I believe, especially given the Swati example you give which is interesting. But to totally deny EVERY contrary evidence without debate indicates a Point of View, which isn't encyclopedic. (This is an encyclopedia, hence neutrality must be maintained. This is NOT a eulogy page to your pashtun romance).

Secondly, I have not come across a SINGLE source by any historian which records Tanolis as Pashtun, absolutely none. I would appreciate a Yousafzai text which would accept them as their brethren (Again THERE IS NONE) I would gladly accept a local account for this by neighbouring Yousafzais etc but again I am dissappointed here too. 'Al Afghaniya Tanoli' is a strange case. Pashtuns are not the be all and end all of all things Afghan. Syed's are absolutely not Pashtun, yet they are Afghans by localised centuries of inhabitance and cultural practice. So Tanolis culturally Afghan background is not disputed. But to change their entire history, batch them up together as one ethnic group (which you have agreed is in question anyway) is a poor attempt without doubt.--Raja 22:00, 21 November 2006UTC)

Reply to Supersaiyan/Raja

I may have a lot more of of resources to back up my position than you have. You are only quoting what you've read in non-Tanoli Janjuas and also misquoting from the Imperial Gazetteer of NWFP. I have already said what the original Gazetteer says on page 138 - Janjuas are not mentioned there at all.

If you actually read what was stated in context then you would have read that it was an elaboration of the Tanolis position in the early 20th century after having been almost completely reduced by the Sikhs, but for the grace of Amb as a remaining capital and it's measurements. You must read before jumping to conclusions.--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, you are on a mission to prove something that never was i.e. Raja Tanoli is in the minds of the Janjua theorist as he did not exist in Tanawal. In any case his name has never been spelt in the references as Tanawali nor tanauli. Only proper Tanawalis have been written in different ways. You are doing this to make sure the narrative is as close to the writings on the real Tanawalis of which Tanoli is a later corruption.

Strange, you disagree on the way the word is written in english when we know most tribal names have never been spelt consistently as one name as English being a new language in the continent? What is the relevance of this to the argument? None.--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, in Rawalpindi the Janjuas are known as Kasbis i.e. those that are involvedin menial tasks - hardly a Raja thing to do.

My dear your false notions without resources are now proven beyond doubt! And that is simply because I have with me a copy of the RAWALPINDI GAZETTEER itself which states; "....they are proud of their ancestry, make good soldiers, bad agriculturists. They are usually addressed as "Raja", and stand very high in social rank. Their widows do not re marry and they only give their daughters to Janjuas or Saiads..." (2001, Sang-e-meel Publications, p105) I can even print a picture of the actual reference itself which proves this beyond doubt should you require it? Infact, I challenge you to provide me a reference where it states clearly that the Janjua are as you say, especially in a more reputable source than an official Government report on a district :-)You cannnot my friend. Infact there is no proof that a Syed would even take a daughter from the Tanolis at all anywhere. But I have two sources which state they would from a Janjua! But funnily enough, just for your information, I can even quote a particular source which alleges the Barlas theory (which you purport also too), BUT states clearly and somewhat truthfully; " ...They (Tanolis) are an industrious and peaceful race of cultivators; but their bad faith has given rise to the saying - "Tanawali be-qauli", the Tanaolis word "is naught". " (Panjab Castes, Baloch, Pathan and allied races chapter, Sir D.Ibbetson Delhi, 2002, p93-94) and thats by someone who isn't a Janjua or any other tribe to do with India infact. All things considered, the Tanaolis allied with the British so you can't even say there was an ulterior motive here PT. And you thought you could call a proud tribe Kasbis and get away with it, lol. --Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This may be an explanation for the extreme minority among the Tanolis who may say they are Janjuas because they are trying to escape their huble origins. They cannot be included in the major clans of Pakhtuns Tanolis (the majority in the region) as in such a close-knit society it hard to escape your roots as everyone knows the history of the various families among them. This has also happened to other non-Pakhtun clans within Tanol and Agror. The Shadwals have in recent years started claiming to be Awans. Thus what is happening is when some families cannot prove their link with the major, powerful clans or sub-tribes they end up claiming an association that the locals know nothing about. This is very common among Indian lower castes - please consult the relevant literature.

Again I challenge you to prove it. After a numerous requests for reliable sources to quote your "theories" can you provide just one to back this basic assumption up? I am aware that certain tribes did allege Rajput status to get into the Pakistani army, but were is the proof for Pakhtun wannabe driven recruitment? What purposes did this serve? Here is a link of someone who is a Punjabi Tanoli and accepted as one officially (read it for a change instead of ignoring it)[4]

I consider this appropriate for you to do as the same thing is happening in your writing. You seem to be rubbishing everything that contrdicts your position even the fact that the ruling family do not know who Raja Tanoli is and all they know he might have come from another planet as Rajputs are so fond of telling us they have lunar descent.I can use another term here to expand the lunar concept but I shall refrain from doing so in the interest of nettequest or Wiki Ethics.

Strange, because you just admit below that you were intentionally provocative. It's usually a sign of insecurity, but hey, glad to help. Regarding the Lunar descent, it's a given for Hindu Rajputs to believe, but Muslim Rajputs do not subscribe to it beyond a mere classing of the main branch possibly from a similar ancestor. One of your Tanoli brethren once alleged on the Tanoli page that he was a descendant of Hazrat Yousaf (AS)!!! You cant get more incorrect than that since his lineage never extended my friend, read you OWN facts before stating them for the world to see and today ridicule.--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As a Punjabi you are on a mission but the only answer to this I can give you is that you as an outsider cannot impose on us your views as our folk history, written accounts for centuries have held us to be of Afghan, Turkic and Mughal origin and this is in the genes, history and traditions. It is also in the parawali/swatiwali of our conduct and in our faces. As a member of a leading aristocratic family in the region I have much more to contribute to the debate than you can as a outsider hell-bent on trying to prove otherwise that Tanolis are predominantly Janjuas.

I dont care who you ALLEGE to be, but the fact that you have not provided a single credible source is very strange and suspect. You havent been able to counter the evidence I produced so far and not even offered any yourself. My royal credentials don't need an ego boost on Wikipedia unlike your strange reason to try and accomodate your "alleged" credentials on a Janjua page, but my own direct ancestor was mentioned by Mughal Babur himself as an ally (Rai Sangar Khan Janjua) and even as close family with the powerful real Pashtun Niazi tribe (Langar Khan Niazi described as a motivating force by Babur was a maternal nephew of the Janjua). Even more strange is that Mughal Babur did not mention ANYWHERE the existence of either Tanawal, or a Tanoli Sardaar/Khan. I wonder what happened there PT?--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are so proud of your roots then how come you use Raja as a title and not Singh as is the tradition among real Rajputs of Rajputana?

Because we are not Hindus of Rajastan (Note the Khanzadas of Rajasthan since conversion never adopted Singh as their middle names either), besides, Singh is a name, not a title, i.e. have you ever heard of any Rajput calling themselves the "Mahasingh of such and such"? Ofcourse not. Raja is a hereditary title and hence it us used, as documented above. I do hope that helps you understand us a little better :-)--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The tern Khansahib is used for all Pakhtuns regardless of whether he has it as his surname formally. Non-Pakhtuns and non-Mughals who use the name usually have been given it as an honour by the British rulers. Does this mean that those non-Pakhtuns and non-Mughals who have adopted this name are their descendents? Should I or adpot Sir as a title because Sir Akram Khan was thus honoured by Queen Victoria.

Why not? You seem to allege that you have adopted a geographical reference as a surname, which is just as equally justified. This term is actually in contrast to what I have read as the name "Khan" is used, never "Khansahib" consistently. The term Khan is actually an original Mongolian/Mughal title. Where you can now allege the title to suddenly be conferred only by the British exclusively is certainly an erroneous and ducious misconception sadly contrary to history. Name me one Pashtun family who used the name Khan prior to the 12th century please? Infact you cannot provide me a single Yousafzai or Mughal source that presents Tanolis as either brethren or accepts you as a genuine Pashtun origin, although I have quoted sources on your Tanoli of sources who state that you are not accepted as Pashtuns. Even the Pashtun discussion page users refused to accept you as Pashtun, but you keep vandalsiing the evidence presented on the Tanoli page to distort it. Then you ludicrously allege that I rubbish YOUR evidence? If I remember correctly, I actually INCORPORATED your Pashtun theory into the Tanoli article and left it to the reader to decide for themselves, encyclopedically. You wiped it off and now allege wiki ethics. Hypocrisy at it's best.--Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall enter into this debate with you and answer some of your other erroneous assertions later. I think this is enough for now. I have been rather provocative in places and this was my intention to take this debate to the next level. Pakhtun Tanoli: 22 November 2006 17:05PM

Likewise I am ready for this debate as you have pretty much been playing games on wiki for the past few months and being elusive when requests for proof and debate were made.

My ultimate position is that Tanolis are a very mixed people today who have no proof of their ultimate ancestry. Janjuas have resided in strong positions in Darband and NWFP regions of Chach which is actually historically documented by the Mughal emperors no less, which you can in no way dispute as false, unless the Mughals were also involved in the "conspiracy theory" you purport. Infact Janjuas proud position has been well documented, so your ridiculous claims are certainly in poor taste rather than genuine fact.

Basically, let's stop the silly games and get down to a healthy discussion. I am not here to offend and if any of my "previous" work has done so then it has truly been without intention. Let's work together in a healthy way and try to resolve this matter. --Raja 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pakhtun Tanoli sockpuppets

I know you've been answered in an up front manner above, but that doesn't mean you still continue playing your childish games on this aticle and change things without consultation. Cease and desist from your ill debated edits and discuss them here and let's work together in an adult manner. If thats too much for you, then further action may result against you.--Raja 11:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Punjabi Raja's Persistence

Please do not threaten me again on this site. Until we resolve this matter desist from putting anything on Tanolis in this article. You continue to quote from the Gazetteer which is a misquote. I have all the relevant references and original texts. You neither a Tanoli nor someone from any part of the NWFP. One or two dubious sources do not make a fact. You are one of those people from certain part of northern Punjab who are usually barbers and use Raja titles. Give me a little time and I shall shut your mouth on this matter with a scholarly reply. Until then go back to hairdressing or put a sock in the puppet mouth of yours. I have responded in l;ike manner to you so now stop reverting to your text. Pakhtun Tanoli: 18:41 24th November 2006.

I think you misunderstood my reference of sockpuppet (internet). It's a term for people who avoid logging in and changing articles or using other IP addresses, names etc [5]. You changed the article etc. I will however remove the said part of the gazzetteer, but it is merely a reference of the size of Amb and nothing more. I dont expect a scholarly reply from you, you havent done it so far so I wont hold my breath. Until then the article stays. And I will continue to threaten to report you if you continue your poor conduct here. --Raja 09:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pakhtun Tanolis ridiculous vandalism

Instead of deleting the arguments which show your intent and character (as you've done here) how about actually speaking with me reasonably and engaging the issue? I am more than satisfied that the article reflects that not all Tanolis are Janjua (but distinguishes that some are both Punjabi and Janjua) is that what you have problems with? I cannot see what evidence you can provide to dispute this. Infact, if anything, you've been absolutely abusive on the [Tanoli]] page and your vandalism here is more than obvious too. I am offering you a chance at a clean slate and proper discussion, will you play ball or be immature again? --Raja 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the tanoli section of the artcal because thres no evdence to substantiate any of the drivel included on this page. Raja Tanolis a fantasy and you are mistaken to publish such nonsense. Tanolis are a proud pashtoon people who are made of Turks, Mugals and variaus afghan tribals. No panjabis are among them. Get your facts right. There are many books that say janjuas are jats and gujars are also same as rajputs. What you say to that. Unlike you pashtoons are not descendants of hindus and sikhs. Please do your puja and repent.

And yet again it has been reverted due to your poorly debated position. Infact, the points you stress have ALL been referenced should you care to read it. Nice try Pakhtun Tanoli but your poor behaviour is not very indicative of scholarly attributes. Puja/worship is a subjective thing. Maybe you should consider it for the attacks you have done?....--Raja 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tanoli back again...

There is no evidence of Tanoli Khan as either being in Hazara nor ever existing. Secondly, Khan as a surname of any Punjabi including Janjuas, whose rajput origin is also disputed, is of recent times.

Not true, in fact, the handwritten memoirs of Emperor Babur, he clearly mentions the Janjua Chief as "Sankar KHAN Janjua came, presented a horse..." (The Baburnama, W.M. Thackston, 2002,p273) Infact the Rajput status of the Janjuas was actually mentioned by his illustrious grandson Akbar no less. Now although you have just been PROVEN here to be incorrect, you have cleverly avoided all my above points in other sections. ;-) --Raja 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The word tanawali is strictly used for Tanawal dwellers of Tanawal mountain range not because of a person called Tanoli. I have already mentioned elsewhere why tanawali is also pronounced as tanoli in Hazara. There are no specific Pakhtun tribes called tanoli or tanawali mainly because majority of them are from various clans of Yusafzai and others from Karlugh Turks, Swatis and Barlas Mughals.

THANK YOU FOR PROVING YOURSELF WRONG. If there are no Pashtun tribes called Tanoli (as YOU have ADMITTED above) then why are you then adding their name into the Pashtun tribes list?! Contradiction at it's best it seems. I have alleged this all along and to this day also believe what you have just admitted is right and have incorporated that into this article. But your incivil anger/intellectual difficulty is hindering you from understanding that there is a proven Janjua presence in Darband from early ages which you can NEVER deny.--Raja 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason they so vehemently oppose being Punjabis is because of their comparative status with other pakhtuns in their region. You are a base Punjabi who is so intent on clutching at straws that you are pedalling discredited theories. For your information Mr Singh (I believe this is the right appelation for a Rajput)I am a very scholarly person and you are not. Your information comes from unreliable internet sources pass it on as critically evaluated output. It is anything but.

Interestingly, no Janjua has ever been recorded in Hindu times to have been a Singh so you are incorrect. The appels of Dev and Paal have been used. I have asked you for 1 solid proof to refute my above points, but other than childish immature rants, you have failed uttterly.--Raja 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very busy doing a lot of marking currently but I shall provided evidence for my assertions. I suggest you do the same. In the meantime stop deleting Tanolis from the Pashtun tribe list and also do not include them in the Janjua section of the spurious history of Janjuas. Stick to the usual story and leave NWFP out of Punjab.

I dont have to do the research seeing as my assertions are ALL backed up with sources, but you do seeing as you always promise to bring proof, but consistently failed. Instead of a scholarly debate (that keep going on and on and on about) you just try and delete the page where you have been shown up. I dont think you can dispute anything now that you have proven my point in the above paragraphs! Better late than never eh?--Raja 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another sad attempt with again no proof

Nothing has been proven. I have all the sources and a critical analysis/evaluation to back up my assertion. You Mr Singh only depend on 2 or 3 sources. The proof of the pudding is in the various references I have given including Tanawali ones -

Strange, you havent provided a shred of evidence yet, although your claioms have been disproven completely above.--Raja 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

you seem to be in denial of the fact the so-called descendents of 'Tanoli Khan' do not list this mythical figure among their ancestors. You do not have the history of the prominent families of Tanawal, nor their geneology, their relations to other Pakhtun tribes in the region and you are a Punjabi to boot. Raja Tanoli may have existed but not on this planet - only in on the moon before his progeny came to earth as the rajput story seems to clearly say.

Nope thats what the Hindu Rajputs believe, not the Muslim Rajputs. Please be specific. No Muslim Janjua believes this story, but it's reference has been included to maintain the dignity of their ancient Hindu heritage, which you seem to be rather prejudiced against..--Raja 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I have had students of Punjabi Hindu origin whose surnames are Janjua and they insist they are Jats and not rajput. So your story does not stand up. More than one british historian has questioned the assertion of many 'rajputs' in the Punjab, particularly in what is now Pakistani part of the old Punjab Suba. They maintained that there is no difference in the origin of Jats, Gujjars and Rajputs.

And thats your proof?! Thats a pathetic answer. BUT you cite British sources (dubiously), but when I cite them as quoting on record that they believe Tanolis to be of Indian origin you deny it. But you confuse 'some' Rajputs ancestry with the mainstream here. Bhattis, Jarral, Janjua, Johiyas are all branches of the same main patriarchal aryan dynasty, so your point is negated there.--Raja 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And given that being called chaudrey, Jat or even a Gujjar in the NWFP in general and Tanawal/Agror vallies specifically, is tantamount to being called of illegimate birth, I rest my case here. Don't worry i shall be getting back to this issue very soon in the new year. Till then keep on surfing the 'net for unreliable information to back up your attempts to put janjuas at par with Pakhtuns but you never will as I am here to expose your fraudulent claims.

Im not surprised they do, as in the Tanoli that you wrote you state that upper tanwal is considered a "backward area"! Here's a link in case you want proof Considering the Janjua hold the titles of Sultans and Raja (none of the 3 you mention above) you are again proven wrong. Janjua have records (both their own and mentions from others) to prove their own ancestry, unlike the current non Janjua Tanolis (i.e. you) dont know whether your mongolian Barlas or Pashtun Yusufzai (2 completely different races let alone tribes), so the definition of "not knowing who your father is "(i.e. illegitimate birth) can be deduced who that best fits... Either way, your useless claims with no proof (what proof are you crying about, you haven't provided any??!!) leaves me to one conclusion. You are proofless and little else. Your prejudice against Punjabis is comic at best. But the fact that you have admitted above that Tanolis are not a Pashtun tribe and that upper tanawal is backward is enough of a slip up to say the least! Look again at the article, I have added sourced citations of where Tanolis are known as NON Pathans :-)--Raja 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not admiotted to anything of the sort. As for illegitimate birth I can safely say that among Punjabis there is the opinion that Pathans were very with their (Punjabi)women and this is quite clear in the physiognomy of many in northern punjab - could this be the explanation of Janjuas naming themselves Khans and not Singh as this is the proper thing to do. It seems Sikhs steal the name Singh off the real Rajputs of Rajputana and the Punjabi fake Rajputs steal Khan from real Afghans and Mughals. herein lies a dillema for you my friend. rather than going round denigrating family tress of the Tanawalis trace your own and you might even find you are an illegal Pashtun from the wrong side of the bed. Until a mass scale genetic research proves you and your community Rajputs i better keep quite if I were you.

Is that scholarly proof reply? You cant answer my points and rebuttals so now you want to get personal? I am disappointed. You failed miserably to argue your point. But either way, Khan was a title that was conferred, an equivalent to ruler, which originated with the Juan Juans [6] (who strangely enough, are sometimes referred to as the ancestors of the Janjua!) and it was later adopted by the Afghans from the conquering 'Khanates' of the Mongolians and Turks. So who stole it from who?! ;-) --Raja 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof of Raja's point

I got personal because you got personal. You also misrepresented me - I I did not admit to anything of the sort you say I did.

Firstly thank you for a post with a civil tone for a change. But I contest the fact that I said anything that warranted the above poor comments. You clearly said in the above post "There are no specific Pakhtun tribes called tanoli" then why are you contesting that they are throughout wikipedia? Read it above, you typed it yourself.--Raja 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I contest the fact that a Raja Tanoli lived and if he did it was certainly not in Tanawal nor anywhere in contemporary NWFP areas. The fact that some British sources cast doubt on Tanolis being Pakhtun is nothing new as they said the same for Swatis,Jaduns and Dilazaks. This is apparent in the Gazetteer of Hazara District 1883-44 (see page 64).

Wrong. The Colonialists weren't the ones casting doubt, they recorded that OTHER Pashtuns didn't consider them as Pathans in blood although they accpeted they were more similar to them than any other local race such as Awans, Gujjars, Gakhars etc, i.e. although "similar in culture" they were not Afghans by blood. I in return contest that Tanaolis are a Pathan tribe (as admitted by you above and earlier by colonial researchers)but are more likely a Hindkowan tribe. Difference obviously is, you fail to prove your assertion above, yet I have proven all mine (with your help ofcourse).--Raja 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Conveniently you fail to mention that elsewhere in the same publication it is mentioned that the author states, rather ambioguously, The fact is that there are many tribes, not really or at least certainly of Pathan origin, who have by long association become so assimilated to the Pathans that is difficult to separate them; while they themselves often, though not always, claim to be of Pathan stock p. 64.This says assimilated not integrated as the two terms mean totally different things hence you cannot separate Tanolis from Pakhtuns.

Wrong again. This point is included here [7] but have actually proven my point. The fact is that they follow their respective regional practices. But strange that you present this info, because you keep deleting this same info from the article?! BUT what you have CONVENIENTLY FAILED TO MENTION is that just a little below the SAME PAGE as you quoted it clearly states RATHER AMBIGUOUSLY, "I (Major Wace) ought to explain that in classing Saiads, Swathis and Tanaolis and others as races allied to the Afghans, I DO NOT mean that they are allied to them in blood....and no Afghan WOULD ADMIT that either Jaduns, TANAOLIS or Swathis ARE OF AFGHAN BLOOD" It's comedic that the reference you quoted to prove your point actually ended up proving mine!

Now let's see, you say "This says assimilated not integrated as the two terms mean totally different things" but on the source page YOU quoted, it states that Tanolis are "NOT allied to Afghans in blood" and that NO Afghan tribe accepts them as so either. Then it appears that the Tanaoli's "assimilation" is purely cultural and "possibly" ethnic (through marital relations with prominent tribes. In fact Langar Khan Niazi, the king of the Niazi's in Babur's time, was a maternal Janjua according to Babur in his memoirs, so marriages amongst prominent tribes of ANY ethnicity amongst Muslims was/is practiced.) as opposed to your implication "of complete assimilation that you cant tell them apart, hence they must all now be Pathan." In fact I counter your point and suggest that it was INTEGRATION by (and I quote from the actual source) "long association" that resulted in their assimilation to be grouped as allies to Pathans although not by blood. --Raja 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it also comments that 'The majority of the Tanaolis have forgotten their Pashtu tongue' p.61 - if were not Pakhtun or from Pakhtun areas e.g. Mahaban in Swat across the Indus then why would the author say they tongue was Pashtu? The same author repeats this for Swatis, Dilazaks and Jaduns so are you going to call them them non-Pakhtuns as well? There is a lot rto say. Send me your address and I'll post you my book as soon as it is off the press.

Thats incredible, because on p60 of the SAME book, it says, " The inhabitants of the Tarbela....those of the Takheli and of the Tanaoli villages on the bank of the Indus, all speak Pashtu, but they know Hindki as well, ...the Majority of Tanaolis have forgotten their Pashtu tongue." Now this confirms clearly that Pashtu is a commonly spoken language in the Tanawal areas, yet the Tanolis themselves only speak Hindko, so the idea of it being "forgotten" is absurd (how can a whole clan forget a language that they spoke over generations, when their own subjects speak it daily in their kingdom?!) If the inhabitants speak it, it is likely THEIR mother tongue as opposed to the Tanaolis, who funnily enough it states 3 pages later are NOT an Afghan tribe by blood or origin. Again you have proven my point! Are you claiming that only Pashtu speakers are Pashtun?! In that case the whole of Peshawar is Pashtun! Ofcourse not, how can a language determine an ethnicity? This is a very weak argument Mumtaz. I do agree with what you say regarding the multi ethnic/tribal make up of what is a Tanoli today, so I dont see why you are arguing an agreed point here..... But you can keep your book, if you haven't provided any proof here of your assertions, I doubt your book will. But thanks for the offer anyway, and for proving MY points (in fact your book maybe useful in proving my points, lol). Now remain civil or you will be blocked for your behaviour again.--Raja 19:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This wrtier should try to be consistent because I have this gazetteer. Tarkheli or Tahirkhelis are Pakhtuns hence thay speak Pushto as do other Pashtuns in the Hazara regiond. Secondly, more Jaduns, Dilazaks and Swatis speak Hindko than Tanawalis and they have also been dubbed non-Pakshtuns by the authors and they are Pashtuns without a doubt. Furthermore it has proven it time and time again by other Pashtuns in Hazara and also in Swat that the Tanawalis are Pashtuns who do not need any certification by any latter day , newly converted Panjabee to be known as Pshtuns so stick to your Granth for inspiration and keep Tanawalis out of Panjabee pages. As a Tahirkheli I insist on my fellow Pashtuns to be as such and you try and keep your super shaistani restricted to across the border.

I challenge that, I have been completely consistent and actually ALSO have a copy of the said book (hence my clarification of the Tanolis points). Tahirkhelis are not in question so please argue them somewhere else. The point you "allege time and time again", has been requested for months and never provided, but counter proof is arising.--Raja 15:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rapoor you will not bully me into submission Tanawalis not panjabee never was panjabee. There is no agreement on points. Only you agree that there was no raja tanoli and then no problem. No janjuas ever in Tanawal state. You are the sirst to say this after Gora sahibs. No rogonal works of Mugals said this. You are a fraud and so is your history. Nobody I meet of Tanawali tribe ever heard of janjuas even before your rubbush on internet. I will tell all people of Pashtunkhwa to boycott this site o

I never said that Tanaolis are Punjabi (although here is a Punjabi Tanoli despite your claims, lol), but my apologies, I dont think you are able to debate this subject properly given the personal attacks and prejudices expressed. Either way, this subject is under review. Thank you for your contribution.--Raja 15:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jan '07

tana is name of a hindu goddess.she is kuldevi of yadu bhattis.when the bhattis were driven from punjab,they went to rajasthan and the first settlement they founded was called tannote,which means tanawal.tana is a common name among hindus,especially bhattis.one of the bhatti rulers is called rao tanuji.this can be verified from col. james todd,s book,"annals and antiquities of rajasthan" in the history of the bhattis.in my opinion, rajput tanolis are descended from janjua raja tana.he must have been the raja of tanawal and founder of the state of tanawal.on the other hand pakhtun tanolis got their name tanoli due to settling in tanawal.for example, bukhari sayeds got their name bukhari because their ancestors came from bukhara and jilani or gailani sayeds got their name from a place called jilan or gailan.sher khan.2.1.2007.

Fair point. Plus, the main argument is that the presence of Janjua in Darband has been recorded by the Mughals Akbar and Jahangir.

An interesting point here is that a simple search can locate the name 'Tanwal' as a common Hindu name [8] and also [9] (But I stress strongly here that the current 'Tanoli' tribe is nothing to do with these people beyond similarity of name at this example). a Resident/descedant of Tanwal known as a Tanwal-i, would make better sense, as the above 'gentlemen' have confirmed. Maybe the matter should be discussed on the Tanoli talkpage? --Raja 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

nice article.very informative.raja saab,could you do the same for the bhatti page,please.thanks. sher khan.23.1.07. rajput populations.according to 1931 census,rajputs were 12.8 million.since 1931 indian populations have increased eightfold.in 1931 sikh rajputs were 50,000.00.Now, according to joshua project they are 400,000.00.this is an eightfold increase.muslim rajputs were 2.1 million.Now,they should be 16.8 million.hindu rajputs were 10.7 million.Now,they should be 85.6 million.overall rajput population should be 12.8 times 8 =102.6 million.sher khan.23.1.07.

Hopefully when I get some more time, I will endevour to do my best for that article also. - Raja

Another sock puppet

The reason I have deleted the Tanoli sections is because now the history has been changed: Raja Tanoli has not only changed his name to Amir Khan Tanoli but his his supposed father Mal 'Khan' also is now the conqueror of Hazara and the person who gave the name of Tanawal to the region. Nice one!

The reason you give is a poor one. Read the section properly, you just distorted what is written there, either because you didnt read it properly, or because you are vandalising this page.--Raja 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What lengths will you go to concoct a history for Janjua presence in Hazara. I repeat there have never been any Janjuas in Hazara at all let alone in the Tanawal principality.

Wrong. If you read the arguments above LIKE YOU SHOULD BE, then you would realise that the proof is not only there, but substantive.--Raja 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If I can prove that both Darband and Tanawal is both Turkic and Afghan origin will you publically apologise on Wikipedia and admit to being a fraud concerning this issue? Your obsession with Tanawali issue is now making me worry that there may be more to this than as it appears here is there an issue of unacknowledged 'Tanoli' blood. Stick to being a Janjua and try not to expand the argument to include Pashtun Tanawalis. Whatever they may be Turks, Barlas Mughals, Yusufzais or a mixture of other tribes, one thing is for sure they are not Janjuas and none of your banya cunning can make it so. 26 January 11:55PM

I dont wish to become personal with you, but your lack of understanding is more than obvious, hence you resorting to poor language. The article doesn't say that all Tanolis are Janjua, it just cites there presence at some point in history in that region, which neither you or any of your sock puppets can deny.--Raja 15:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this section as there is no credible eveidence to suggest that the Janjuas, as a community, have had any presence in the Hazara region. Chach is outside of Hazara and NWFP so is irrelevant to the debate. As is evident from the the ongoing debate above Tanawalis of Hazara, true Tanolis, do not accept the Janjua theory. The only theories worthy of discussion are Pakhtun and Turkic/Mughal origin. (User: Pakhtun Tanoli) 17:27 18 April 2007

I challenge that. The evidence is credible and I have documented all neutral proof. Even a Syed, Mehtab Ali Shah has recorded that the Janjuas of Haripur speak Hindko.

To cut a long story short, I humbly request you to get rid of your bias (which is haraam) and then peacefully discuss this subject. If you do (and I sincerely hope this time that you do bhai) then I can prove to you through some basic references alone that they do. Log on to google.com or amazon.com, and I will show you a simple way link which will take you to the actual page directly and prove this to you.

I am now being as polite with you as I can and I really really hope you accept this gesture and peacefully discuss this with me. We're both of the same faith, and I dont see why we cant talk to each other properly as Muslims, rather than argue with each other. Can you accept this gesture bhai?--Raja 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hindu Janjua Rajputs

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

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

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

Shahrukh Khan's Ancestory

I cannot help to add a new discussion about Shahrukh khan's maternal father. The article states that Shah Rukh Khan is a maternal Janjua Rajput, his maternal grandfather being the famed INA freedom fighter General Raja Shah Nawaz Khan. This is totally untrue. Please provide any reference or proof which upholds this claim.

Thanks,

Thank you for your enquiry. The proof is included as the reference for this article which was in fact provided by a Matore Raja himself. This article cited this fact [10] which cites this connection. General Shah Nawaz Khan himself already mentioned his Janjua ancestry in not only the Red Fort case, but also his autobiography. If you have counter evidence, I am more than happy to resolve this.

--Raja 22:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Raja sahib for your answer. I am myself from Matore and Gen Shah Nawaz Khan Janjua was my uncle. I have never personally met him or seen him coz i was very young when he died. But i know his son. One of his son and daughter lives in Pakistan, the rest live in India. As Shah Nawaz Khan is from my family, i definitely know for a fact that Shah rukh Khan is not. I don't even have any single relative in Media industry, let alone Shah Rukh Khan. If someone claims to be from a particular family, how do you know he is telling the truth. what kind of proof do you want? He hasn't produced any evidence as well that he belongs to my family (from his mother's side).

Thank yo for your kind words Raja sahib. I am myself a mere facilitator of information regarding this issue. I also have very close contacts specifically from Matore also (which I suggest if you want to discuss, then please provide your email and I will contact you through that).

Regarding the issue of relations, it must be stated, that it has been suggested by a National Indian article that he is related to Gen Raja Shah Nawaz Khan. To this extent, you have also confirmed that General Sahib had children in India also. I would suggest that we investigate the matter to locate the names etc of them etc. I myself couldn't really care less of this connection to SRK, but in the interests of this on line encyclopedia, I suggest we take these appropriate steps.--Raja 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan's father was a munshi (accountant) of Gen. Shah Nawaz Khan. His mother's name was Lateef Fatima. Shah Nawaz Khan got Shah rukh Khan's parents married in his house. Shah Nawaz has only two daughters and none of them is named Lateef Fatima. I myself do not care about Shah Rukh Khan's background but the problem is, he is affiliating himself to a Janjua Family which he is not and us Janjua's we call people like SRK as MARASI and if you don't know what MARASI is, all i can tell you its not a good thing to be. Thanks,

Bro, you may be right, but to call someone Marasi, isn't fair on here. SRK does a lot of good charity work too and we are all Allah ke banay hue. As I've stated, I suggest the matter be investigated internally as you yourself stated that General Saheb has other family in India too of which you have little knowledge. Once this factor is cleared substantially, then we can come to a conclusion. Until then, a newspaper article of a reputable orgnisation is a significant citation.--Raja 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you haven't read my last post bruv. Shah Rukh Khan's father was a munshi (accountant) of Gen. Shah Nawaz Khan. His mother's name was Lateef Fatima. Shah Nawaz has only two daughters and none of them is named Lateef Fatima. What kind of proof do you want? could youplease suggest something. Thanks,

With respect, I've read it correctly, but I think before we move ahead, we should correspond. I need to ascertain certain details. If you give me your email (or alternatively, update your account with your email, I can then email you via wikipedia and your email will remain anonymous?) we can then move forward with this issue.--Raja 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have updated my details. You can email me. Thanks, Q

Mumtaz is back

It is not vandalism to delete the disinformation contained in the article at the very top of it even. The one source quoted is based on a lie that has been challenged again and again in the historical literature, in the print media and historians of the Sarhad. If you do not desist I will have to flag this article as disputed. This article seems to be the brainchild of just one person who seems to be going all over the Wikipedia putting in his rubbish to uphold his lies in Janjua. Let me reiterate there is no truth that the Janjuas ever had any presence in the Frontier areas even before the arrival of Afghans, Turks and Mughals. Nazar Rabbi 2:33 PM 31 July 2007

I challenge that. There is a neutral source written by a Syed of the NWFP (dare you negate him?) (thats is from the book, "The Foreign Policy of Pakistan" by Syed Mehtab Ali Shah, IB Taurus 1997, p233) and also an ancient Mughal emperor (Tuzuk i Jahangiri). Besides, the Janjuas of Haripur have even provided a general to the Pakistani army, General AK Janjua himself. If you have the proof, provide it. Otherwise get lost, you've been found out again Mumtaz. Your immaturity has reaced new levels. Thankfully this page is a permanent record for all to read and see how your points have not only been negated, but completely proven malicious and fraudulent. In fact, how about showing me once source to counter it? I have provided at least neutral sources to support it. You have YET to rpovide one to counter them effectively at all. Jealousy is a curse my friend ;-)

I have 'Tuzuk e Jahangiri' with me. Please quote page and chapter where it is. The said book has Janjuas nowhere near Frontier districts but far away in Bhir even in Neelam Valley.

Ofcourse. The books stating this source are quoted from,

• "Chronicles of Early Janjuas", by Dr. Hussain Khan of Peshawar University, 2003 iUniverse, p1 and 26 under the chapter Janjuas in Hazara. He is actually a Janjua of NWFP himself lol!

• Jhelum District Gazetteer, 1904, p93

But aside from them, Syed Mehtab Ali Shah's book;

• "The Foreign Policy of Pakistan" by Syed Mehtab Ali Shah, IB Taurus 1997, p233 which itself records that Janjuas who reside in Haripur are also Hindko speakers.

Now I openly challenge you yet again to face this and offer a reputable source as a counter. I rest assured that other than lies and empty homophobic threats, you will offer nothing. I am not suggesting Tanolis are in fact Janjuas, we've got past that. But there are a smallnumber of Janjuas settled in Haripur and Shamasabad. Thats what your disputing, despite the proof prsented before you. In fact even in Ain i Akbari it records that the Janjuas were chiefs of Darband itself!

The so called Janjua general is a settler in Haripur not a native.

Prove it. What proof do you have to quote this? None? Surprising....

Thirdly, who the hell is Mumtaz you keep rabbiting on about.

You, you sock puppet.

Can you as a son of a sikh not take that there people who disagree with your concocted tales which have no historical evidence? Get over it - you are a Wiki 'historian' with no basis for any of your assertions.

I belong to the most celebrated Muslim Rajput clan in Pakistan. To the contrary my article is completely backed by sources. But YOU have thus far, for over a year now, NOT offered a single source to negate my points. I took your pitiful kanjar name out of the article, and now you try to hide the history if the Janjuas of even Haripur? Have you no shame for your malice? How insecure and anal is that!

If you continue with this I will report you to the site controllers or whatever they are known as.

Go for it. I'm not the one that was banned remember? YOU WERE

You cannot keep on erejecting any challenge to your fraud accounts.

Erecting? Am I causing you erections?! Besides, I reject your silly challenges because you never have any proof my dear fellow. You are just a small time midget crying about wanting to be a Pathan when your own people openly reject it and cal themselves Turks, Mughals etc etc etc. So many fathers and so little proof. There is a name for people like you ;-)

You read somewhere on the 'net that Shah Rukh Khan's maternal grandfather is a Rajaput and you jumped straight in and made him a Janjua - you are wrong on both accounts.

Prove it. I never stated he was a Janjua. An article is available stating he was a Maternal Janjua, but I have since clarified this and found that his mother was adopted by a Janjua Raja General. This has since been shown in a neutral and reflective way. You on the other hand try to deny your other theories and cry about my people. If I remember correctly, you tried to make my own clan member Amir Khan a Pathan? He couldn't stop laughing at your envy, lol. You are clearly in awe and can't leave our history. It's natural, many tribes are envious of our repute. Hence your behaviour is explained, miserably Anal.

Finally, if you are a man and wish to meet me to know who I really am then make arrangements with your friends etc. so that all of us, your side and mine, can ascertain our respective identities. Are you a man or just a pretend one for Wiki pages only.

Your pathetic threats are causing me to yawn excuse me...("YAWN") we Rajeh dont fear any cowardly mongrels, like you. Our warlike proud position is undisputed in the Salt Range and currently in the Pak army and the boxing ring. But for your info, I'm in Ratala, Tehsil Gujar Khan district of Islamabad. Bring it on anytime, we Rajeh love teaching you mongrels a lesson, lol. Infact we have some peshawar derived mongrels subjugated as our kasbis and farmers of our Jagirs. You are great agriculturists according to many books I have too, lol. You people couldn't even take on the Gakhars near you who established their Khanpur in your areas, what are you gonna do with us hardcore Janjua Rajeh of Potohar!!! The Rajeh of Matore Kahuta, Darapur Jhelum, Kashmiri Khakhas, Malot etc would have you mongrels publicly castrated. But for the record, this page is clear evidence of how I ripped your every claim apart with cited proof yet you have NEVER come back with any valid proof of your anal claims. You cant hide the disgrace you have faced here ;-)

You've been proved to be a liar before by other people and it can be done by me. I am keeping tabs on your 'contributions' to other articles and discussionm pages too. Nazar Rabbi, 17:12, 1st August 2007

You have yet to prove yourself 'truthful, let alone prove me a liar. Are you blind? This whole page is a worldwide testament at how a Tanoli tried to be a Pathan, got proven that he isn't and he became so anal, he cant leave the people he is secretly in awe of. It's Freudian you know, sons are always preoccupied with their baaps ;-)--Raja 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)