Talk:Sudhan

employment

whatever is written is with full research based...any confusions you can send and ask

Rebellion against Pakistan Army

Dear Friend from holland, this is a significant event in the history of Poonch and Sudhans, if you want to discuss it is the way to do this, but dont just erase this as it is against the policy of wikipedia

Dear Friend, Do you have any proof of this event..if you claim something you must evidence it through citations or references to a reputable source. If you provide this then I will accept this as fact.

It is a fact that Sudhun rebelled during 1954 and that Pakistan Army send in military to suppress the rebellion, this is part of history and has to be reported, just becaue Pakistanis now dont know about this does not make it someones right to erase this.

rawalakot1

At the cost of sounding redundant please reference this 'fact' through citations from a reputable source. If it is a fact then prove it.

IT WAS a rebellion against the ,liaquat ali khan who was the prime minister certain people of sudhan tribe were with the socialist movement ,they indulged in the rebel activities....later because of the differnces with the ch:ghulam abbass! and col:sher ahmed khan the panjab constabulary was sent to catch the persons ...in certain areas they were brutally crushed and in other areas the constabulary people lost badly

That will have to be looked into (there still isn't any references) and before it was the Army that got crushed now it's the Police?

Why dont you discuss this rebellion rather than removing it and vanalizing the site ?

trueblood 03:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

The opening section of this revision should be moved to a "Locations" section and be more descriptive of what "Sudhun" is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raijinili (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Hoax

I think we the sudhans are too emotional and write things which harm us in the long run. But for Sudhans there would not have been Azad Kashmir. So how can the Sudhans revolt against Pakistan army when almost 90 percent able bodied Sudhans used to join Pakistan Army. Sudhans were there as part of senior military bureaucracy in the Govts of Yahya Khan , Zia ul Haq and Parwez Musharraf. Sudhans are back bone of Pakistan army and are extremely fine soldiers. In 1954 the issue was not Sudhans versus pak Army. The differences between Colonel sher Ahmad and Sardar Ibrahim were exploited and the situation was mishandled. Sudhans have contributed a lot towards Pakistan and some ignorant and irresposible people have provided ammunition to our opponents who are enjoying the throne of Muzaffarabad by maligning us. if any one has a doubt i will prove the point by quoting histry and will refer the inquisitor to people who are still living and have hard evidence available( sudozai@gmail.com)

Pushton Tribes

What the people in Peshawar think about their ancestory has nothing to do with Sudhans, half of Pakistan has the last name of Khan. And for your information prior to the Shah of Iran most of Iran also had the last name of Khan. The origin of Khan is Mongolian not Pushtun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.13.123 (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually it isn't Mongolian but Tartar. Genghis Khan's name was not in the form it is now - this is due to Muslim historians naming all Central Asian overlords as Khans. Secondly, Sir Olaf Caroe and the Anglo-Indian Dictionary (1886) cites it as '...although it is now used by Mohomedans as a sort vague equivalent of Esquire.....properly however of those claiming a Pathan descent' (p.479)- and Sir Caroe (1958) 'The appellation Khan is claimed by every Pathan as of right' p.86. This indicates that only Pathans have used this as a common surmane whilst others had to be bestowed with the title as being of princely or aristocratic status. You are totally wrong when you say that half of iran had Khan as a surname. The reality is that it was the surname of Shah of Iran - his origins were in northern Iran hence Tartar/Turkic, and he his father gave it up upon acquiring the Peacock throne as has been the practice before e.g. Farid Khan became Sher Shah Suri to name but a few.

By last comment is that you should not belittle you benefactors. It is due to these same Pathans you are able to be Azad Kashmiris and not part of Maqbooza ilaqas in India. We can talk about this further if you wish but I don't think you'd want to open that debate here. Imran Jadoon.

Pathans

It was not Pathans who beat the Indian Army, rather it was our fathers and grand fathers who fought and beat back the Indian Army. For your information, we sudhans did beat the Pakistan Army in 1956 just like the proud Pathans are now doing as well as the proud Baluchis.

Finally, how do you explain the khan names in Iran, obviusly they are not Pathans. We have nothing to do with Sadozai. It is surprising that you would quote English historians to validate your point, what makes you think they told the truth, according to the English the Indians which includes all Pakistan were no better than dogs. So I would suggest you leave the Sudhans alone and stick with Pushton tribes that consider themselves Pathans. Maybe it would have been better to be in a democratic country rather than in a Dictatorship where the Army is intent on Killing the Baluchis and Pathans. I have nothing against the Pathans, we would be proud to be called Pathans, but historically we are not Pathans. Pathans are a proud lot who are being subjugated by the Pakistan Army and its Punjabi overlords.

We just want our own identity and we know what it is. It is not Puston it might even be Brahmin or Russian but not Pathan.

In reference to your idea that Khan is from Tartar, please see Khan it was brought to Afghanistan from Mongols. There is no disagreement on this. Also most of Iran had the name Khan, but Shah Iran's father outlawed the name Khan. So the name Khan does not denote one being Pustun. Rather it is a name which is used by Muslims all over India, Central Asia etc. But incidently it is not used by the Tartars as you alledged.

Finally, your comment about Pakis being our benefactors you are clearly wrong, our only benefactor is God who guides us and who has protected us. Please dont denigrate our tribe if you have a tribe than edit their site, maybe you should edit the site for Sadozai and fix that one Rehara1 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong on so many counts but in this message I'll confine myself to only a few. The Pashtun lashkar responded to calls from The Quaid e Azam to liberate Kashmir. Many members of my own family volunteered to this call - some were martyred just outside Srinagar. This no fantacy like your beating of Pakistan army. The famous saying 'tapseen te thus karseen' is attributed to the Kashmiris who when given rifles by the Pashtuns to fight off the Dogras responded thus - it means when it's hot it will fire off. They said this because thay put the rifles in the fields. I went to the Tribal areas of NWFP in 1988 and met an old man who along with my great-uncles was in the PAshtun lashkar and repeated this same story. He further said that it is true that the lashkar killed many Kashmiris unintentionally because these Pashtuns could not speak Urdu or Punjabi and just asked these people to say the Kalima to ascertain their religion and they were not able to do so hence the tragic conclusion that they are non-Muslims so they died. These same Kashmiris also 'shopped' these liberators to the Indians the Mujahids were killed. This thing happened again when the Kashmiris of Maqbooza Kashmir relayed the news of impending arrival of Pakistani troops in the guise of Kashmiris Mujahids to the occupying Indian authorities with predictable results. Secondly, they were not considered fighting people because they refused to fight against the Dogras in colloboration with the invading Pathans and were refused entry into Pakistan army for decades. Furthermore, the only people who fought against the Dogras were the communities of the the Northern Areas of Pakistan, who managed to eject the Dogras from Gilgit etc. without any help from current Azad Kashmiris hence their inclusion in the Pakistan proper. They refuse to be classified as Kashmiris despite the best efforts of Azad Kashmir Assembly. Another indication of the total oppression of the Kashmiris by the Dogras is the apparent fact that to this day Azad Kashmiris are reluctant to eat Beef which they call 'Bara Gosht' indicating their reluctance to offend Hindus or their total subjugation which is still prevalent to this day. The majority of the Mujahids fighting in MAqbooza kashmir are non-Kashmiris - some are even Bengalis but a less than a handful are Kashmiris of any descriptions. It is reported that even Chechens are there too. The hills of Mansehra have been training camps for the Mujahidin but non in 'Azad' KAshmir.

Please be aware of the fact that it is very probable that you are a Muslim because of some PAshtun bringing the religion to Kashmir. Your anti-Pakistani feelings are misplaced - look at the fate of your compatriots in India. You are Azad because of Pashtuns primarily and this azadi is maintained by rest of Pakistanis. I would love it if Pakistan can do a deal with India and get some of the regions of East Punjab in trade for Kashmir. It is better not to hold on to a region whose people habour such feelings - as happened in East Pakistan - than put our own progress under threat. Pakistan Paindabad. I do not think you are Russians. Maybe Brahmins but not Russians as they are a martial race like Pashtuns. Imran Jadun.

Reply to Pathans

Dear Friend

Sudhans dont hold ill feelings towards Pakistan. I think you keep on missing the point. It is the Pathans and Baluchis who are now rising up and fighting the Pakistan Army.

For your information Sudhans constitute a large part of Pakistan Army. For example, General Rahim Khan, Muhammad Aziz Khan who incidently was responsible for brining the dictator Mushraff to power and hundreds of others, these happen to be from our tribe and I know them very well.

The fact you state about Northern Areas is a fantasy, created by Pakistan, for instance the head of Kashmir Liberation Front is from Gilgit and he is a hero to most people in Northern Areas as well as in Azad Kashmir.

Secondly you should be aware of the fact that during the Second World War over 50,000 Sudhans were fighting in Europe and Burma. My own relatives fought there including my father who was in the Air Force and was a fighter pilot, later he was in Pakistan Air Force. Lt. Col Tassadaq was head of the Army of Oman.

It does not matter what is a Martial race that is a subjective thing in any case and it seems that every Pakistani believes they are from a Martial race, I guess that is why Pakistan Army has lost every war with India and now with the Pathans, so much for your martial race theory. What counts is winning not just propaganda, another interesting fact is that most Pakistanis somehow believe they have nothing to do with India, in fact before 1947 all of Pakistan was India and were all called indians. Even now you should know that in England there is no difference in the eyes of the English, between Indians and Pakistanis, they are both called Pakis, and no one can tell the difference, they both have the same culture, speak the same languange and most Pakistanis dont even watch Pakistani movies they go to Indian movies.

I am sorry for offending you, but if Sudhans dont want to be considered Pathans that should not offend you. Our own DNA study confirms the facts, and what matters is what we believe not what someone else belives. Some of us believe we are decended from Brahmins and if we are, we are proud of that fact. if we are decended from Russians or even africans that should not upset you.

Kashmir was a beautiful peaceful place that has been destroyed by the so called Mujahedeen as you call them, you are correct, these people are not Kashmiris, therefore they should go back to there own countries and leave our paradise alone.

Why is it that in Azad Kashmir, Kashmiris are not allowed to vote in an open election for representatives of JKLF, because the Pakistanis know that JKLF would win.

The Pathans who went into Kashmir valley did in fact kill thousands of Kashmiris, whether it was by mistake or not is not the issue. The fact that you mention that they wanted to kill all hindus is in of itself disgusting and disturbing. Islam does not allow muslims to kill someone just because of their religion. The idea that if a Kashmiri does is not a muslim and thus should be killed is anti Islamic and barbaric.

For your information Kashmiris dont speak Urdu or Punjabi but Kashmiri. That is what people speak in the Valley. And someone who told you that the Pathans killed Kashmiris by mistake as they did not know how to ask someone religion is again a fantasy and if true clearly stupid.

Most Pathans that went to Kashmir valley came from the tribal areas of NWFP and not from Mansera or the hill tribes such as swat etc.

Most Sudhans live in Sudnoti[1] which is the Poonch district and not Muzzafarabad so your analysis is incorrect. Their are Rajputs and others who live in Muzzarafabad, but not Sudhans. The Jadoons again have nothing in common with Sudhans, they speak Hindkoo, which we dont speak, it has some common terms not exactly the same. When I grew up in Peshawar, I was always under the understanding that Hinkoo speakers were not pathans.

I dont know about Jinnah and what he did or did not do. You cannot change history. All you have to do is go to Kashmir and ask the people what they want. We have a 90% literacy rate for both men and women in Azad Kashmir no thanks to Pakistan.

We are not Wahabis but Hanafi. We have good relations with Pathans, thousands of them live in Rawalakot and run small businesses.

Pustoons did not bring Islam to Kashmir, it were Sufis from Iran and Turkey, we still have their graves and they are revered saints.

It is really good that you believe that the so called liberation fighters are being trained in Mansera, this is exactly what the Indian Government has been saying for years, that Kashmiris are not the one killing people but foreign trained terrorists, so you must be in agreement with the Government of India.

We in Azad Kashmir dont want these people destroying our country, just like they have done in Afghanistan and are now intent on destroying Pakistan, just look at your Geo TV and look at what the Pakistan Army is doing to Pathans and Baluchis, which has resulted in a rebellion in both Baluchistan and NWFP. It is just a matter of time before Pakistan Army wins another Bangladesh in what is remaining of Pakistan.

Good luck. You should not get angry but just look up the facts.

Finally, I see that you have edited Janjua, and than list Amir Khan a boxer as a Janjua, the interesting fact here is that you agree that his ancestry is Rajput, so how do you explain Khan as his last name. This proves my point that Khan is a name that Muslims now in South Asia use regardless of whether they are Pustoun. Please make yourself a registered user rather than using an IP address that is located in Holland.

Rehara1 04:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Khan issue

As an outsider to this argument, I have to add Rehara, this user isn't in Holland, but a troublemaker from Leeds University who wants to claim Pashtun ancestry for all sorts of tribes. His edit to Janjua was vandalism, not a constructive edit. He has been warned many times, but uses sock puppets etc and will not use a set username as this would expose his work. I know a young Sudhun, and he has also enquired with his elders and they have also laughed away the Pashtun theory. Especially in light of th DNA evidencve.

Sadly, he was vandalising the Janjua page also, and for almost a year claimed he had evidence that Tanolis were not Janjua ethnically, yet to this day has not provided any evidence of this. I dont see him providing proof for your page either, so don't hold you breath.

Khan is without doubt simply a name and a title to many south asians. Mughal Babur himself refers to a Janjua tribal lord as "Sangar Khan Janjua", who was a Muslim Indian. He also called a Pathan Niazi Tribal Lord "Langar Khan Niazi" (both in his famous Baburnama (The Baburnama, 2002, W.M Thackston, p377, 271, 276), making no distinction in the name. It is in no way shape or form an exclusive ethnic property (which in itself is ludicrous given this ancient undisputable proof). That argument is therefore nullified immediately. (notice how I gave a referenced citation as evidence for my assertion, yet something he will not do for any his assertions....)

Pashtuns did not bring Islam to Kashmir, it was ofcourse through many different ways, preaching being one of them. To claim this too as a 'Pashtun exclusivity' is again a folly and I dont believe many Pashtuns beyond this user will agree. In fact the Khakha tribe of the lower Jhelum valley were already Muslim before the Afghans completely conquered the valley, as were the Bhambas Sultans and many other tribes. Another misconception nullified I'm afraid.

Hope that helps Rehara. Goodluck.--Raja 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

I have been contacted by a user requesting that the disputes on then article be dealt with.

For now the disputed tag has been added, please discuss each issue collectively, reach common consensus of approval which is more factual rather than opinionated, then add to the article.

The tag can be removed after this has been done.--Raja 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Geneology

I dont know why someone keeps on claiming the descent from Pathans, maybe both views can be placed on the site. However please dont erase the items already there. A lot of research was done by Col. Khalil which is referenced in the article. Including the DNA reseaarach which is tagged.

trueblood 04:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend adding your point re: non Pashtun origin into the article as an alternative origin theory as well as citing the others as theories too.

I would further recommend that you definitely add the citations and evidential proof to your claim as it will certainly appear more valid than any other opinions which may not be able to stand to evidential scrutiny.--Raja 11:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added both the points of view now, and how do you add the citations as the references are listed below in the araticle under references ?

Thanks

trueblood 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)