Talk:Sudhan

employmnet

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?

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).[reply]

Hoax

This is not an hoax.

you right 100% --sm_murtaza@hotmail.com 15:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]