Talk:Awan (tribe)

Rawalpindiexpress

• a) You have to go with rules which you set for others . Thanks for accepting that somewhere you have added remarks for which you don’t have reference to support.
• b) Adoption the title Alvi, is not Issue. A lot keep the title of Farooqui, Siddique , Usmani and Zaidi . etc whereas they accept that they are not Arab. These titles does not guarantee them Arab origin. I do know a family Settled at Rawalpindi. (Brig Alvi , Ex head Pathology department Army Medical college Rawalpindi ) His father Adopted Alvi title Now he and his brother Bashir Alvi OGDC ,do use this title but hundreds others of their family don’t use this title.

Many Indian clans began to change their clan names after conversion to Islam. Awans of Gujranwala all gave their clan name as Jatt in the Gujranwala District Gazzeteer.

• c) “Unanimous “ in the presence of a lot of contradictory family traditions need to reconsider. There are a lot of claims of different origin discussed in Books at the same time when colonial officers were collecting these traditions, I would be obliged if you let us know which reference support “The point about Awans claiming that Qutb Shah was a descendant of Hazrat Ali, but through a wife other than Hazrat Fatimah,” Is this not addition in the reference? Now you started proving your opinion through reliable sources, Rawalpindi Express , it is really shocking.

.” In fact, in his book, Punjabi Musalmans, J.M. Wikeley states that the Awans maintain that they “...have been Musalmans from the beginning”

• This multi meaning sentence. Please let me know (Islamic point of view)which prophet for the first time started preaching Islam ?” This will clarify what this sentence really mean. Here you are supporting my claim.
• The Qutab Shah descendant of Hazrat Ali who is used as link in Awan family tree lived at Baghdad and was laid to rest there .

The thesis of Miss Sabiha Shaheen is the only fair link which may connect Awan’s with Qutab Shah. When Altamus refused to help the Shah of Khorasan with fear of Mongol, A Pashtun Subedar of Multan hosted him at Multan . To reach Multan, Khewarzm Shah’s army used the same track where today Awans live in Majority. regards Alamsherkhan (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Alamsherkhan, I really don’t mean to be rude, but it is clear that English is your second language, and as such, I really am struggling to make sense of what you have to say. Nevertheless, I will attempt to address the points you have made:

The rules I made reference to, were not set by me, but Wikipedia. Furthermore, I have already pointed out that there was material contained within the article that was not originally added by me, and it is specifically this material that I removed from the article, because although much of it was valid (for reasons I have already gone into), it was nevertheless unsubstantiated. Therefore, your allegations against me are unfounded.

When did I state that carrying the title Alvi is a guarantee that one is of Arab origin? I was simply providing a retort to the issue you had raised in relation to this matter (and I answered your concerns perfectly satisfactorily). When will you finally understand that the aim of the article is not to prove that the Awans are of Arab origin? If this was the case, then the article wouldn’t also cover the opinions of those who reject the Awan claim to Arab origin. How many times must this point be made? All the article does, is reflect what the traditional belief of the Awans is, vis-a-vis their origins, something that every serious study about my tribe also makes reference to. And you don’t need to tell me that there are numerous Awan families that don’t use the title Alvi - I am already well aware of this, as members of my mother and father’s families use a variety of surnames (including Alvi). Oh, and contrary to what you state, I have yet to meet a Zaidi, Naqvi etc. who does not claim be of Arab descent (though there may well be those bearing these names, who do not consider themselves to be of Arab origin).

It really is now getting tiresome repeating the same point, over and over again.

What on earth are you on about when you state that my actions are “shocking”? Due to you not being able to fully express yourself in English, most of what you have to say makes very little sense. I’m sorry, but there is nothing that needs to be “reconsidered” as far as the citation dealing with the Awans being “unanimous” in regards to their claim to Arab descent is concerned – the British conducted what is still considered to be the most extensive census study undertaken in the Punjab, and their findings reflected exactly what was conveyed to them by the majority of the members of each of the ethnic groups that resided there at that point in time (and indeed, continue to reside in this part of the Subcontinent). Furthermore, contemporary studies such as those conducted by Alison Shaw of Oxford University (whose study has been cited in the article), point to the same findings, i.e. the vast majority of Awans profess to be of Arab origin (and indeed, Shaw also stresses that there are a number of those belonging to other Punjabi Muslim communities, who accept this claim). There may well be some Awans who have a different tale to tell when it comes to their supposed origins, but being an Awan myself, the overwhelming majority of Awans I know of, have come across and continue to come across, all claim to be of Arab descent; and even those Awans I have met who are open to a number of differing theories regarding their origins, recognise the fact that the bulk of our tribe claims Arab origins, and indeed, this is a fact that a plethora of source material dealing with my tribe, also recognises (and some of these sources have been referred to in the article). As for the point you keep raising about Awans claiming to be descended from Hazrat Ali, but by a wife other than Hazrat Fatimah, I don’t see why I need to provide you with this as the reference I have cited in support of this contention, can be found in the reference section of the article, but nonetheless, here it is:

Punjab District Gazetteers: Attock District, 1930, 1932, Superintendant Government Printing, p.80 (And the direct quote reads, “Kutb Shah, according to the Awan account, was descended from Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet, but by a wife other than Fatima...”)

Once again, to re-iterate, it’s not my intention to be rude when I state this, but it’s clear that you have problems fully comprehending the English language; the sentence you make reference to, is clear-cut, and does not have “multiple” meanings at all, and it’s because you’re struggling understand it, that you’re now asking bizarre questions regarding who it was that first preached Islam. Hence, for you to allege that I am supporting your claim, is simply untrue – I have done nothing of the sort. As it is, I really don’t have the time to point out the obvious meaning of the sentence you have highlighted, or to be drawn into what could turn out to be a time consuming theological debate (depending on the position one adopts).

As for what you have to say about Sabiha Shaheen’s thesis being the only “fair” account of the Awans possibly being descended from Qutb Shah, well, that is entirely your own opinion. As I’ve said to you before, if you want to add material to the article that counters the traditional claim of the Awan tribe in relation to its origins (i.e. the claim to Arab descent), then do so, as long as the material is supported by references that are valid, reliable and academic in nature (with the material in question also being fully referenced, e.g. the title, year of publication and the publisher of the work being cited, being provided, as well as relevant page numbers). And let me emphasise this now: according to Wiki guidelines, an obscure link on the Internet, does not qualify as a valid secondary source.

I honestly get the impression that you’re now arguing for the sake of it, because I have repeatedly stated that I am not interested in pushing any particular viewpoint regarding the origins of my tribe; all I have done is present a variety of viewpoints in relation to this topic - including the point of view that the majority of my tribe subscribes to - all substantiated by scholarly source material. It is you who is intent on disproving something that cannot even be proven or disproven in the first place (unless all those who declare themselves to be Awans, were to undergo DNA testing, thereby verifying their origins).

Regards

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ghazanfaralvi

Hi Ghazanfaralvi. I don’t know how you can definitively state that the Awans did not belong to a “warrior class” before they entered the Indian Subcontinent, as reliable evidence does not exist to confirm what “class” it was that the Awans belonged to, prior to settling in this region (in fact, it cannot even been confirmed or denied with any certainty, if the Awans even are of foreign extraction). I also find it astounding that on the basis of Rose stating that a tradition exists which purports that the Awans were attached as auxiliaries to the Muslim armies that invaded India, you’ve concluded that they served in the capacity of cooks, animal handlers and the like. The fact is, auxiliaries attached to ancient armies, also served in a military capacity; the auxiliary soldiers recruited by the Roman legions, who served in the infantry and cavalry, are a good example of this. The traditions relating to the Awans being Alvi Sayyids who sought refuge in Sindh, and Qutb Shah being joined by six of his sons in the invasion of Northern India, have already been covered by the article. I’m not sure what the purpose of you stating that Sahd and Fateh Khatoon are Muslim names, is – are you asserting that both women (if they actually were genuine historical figures), were Muslims before Qutb Shah married them? Because if this is the case, then the fact is, they could also have been non-Muslims, who upon marrying Qutb Shah and embracing Islam, adopted these names - in fact, you cite Rose as mentioning the tradition that maintains Fateh Khatoon was the mother of Chauhan; well, according to Wikeley (whom I've mentioned above), "... a Hindu origin has been assigned to the Awans by some writers, who point to the originally Hindu character of two of Kutb Shah's sons, Chohan and Khokhar, which is not explained away by the tradition that these two took their mother's name."

Regards

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rawalpindi Express it is very easy to make such conclusion. Why non of his Sons were a regular soldiers ? Is it not enough to doubt the claim of warrior class ? The writers declare them as Auxiliary , Family traditions claim to be Helper instead Soldier.

• If you agree that all Auxillary were "Helpers" and were Arabs or Alvi's then count of these Helpers were in thousands. As auxillary consisting seven soldiers would be a Joke.
• To win a war, brave and trained soldiers are not the only factor. logistics play key role .In recent history we can see how Germans lost in Russia when they failed to arrange logistics at a far away place. So we must have to assume that Ghaznavi have good enough arrangments for logistics.
• The distance from Ghazni to Peshawar is more than 300 Km . Ghaznavi army could have taken approximately a month to reach Peshawar while having thousands of foot soldiers. thousands of camels/Horses, War logistics , cavalry soldiers etc. Daily water consumption For army may exceeding 30000-50000 gallons (varify from daily water requirement assumed for british or indian solider , a gallon per head). whole the area is in lack of water. Just to arrange water/food he was needing thousand of Helpers.

Tradition claim that Qutab Shah came with Ghaznavi along with six of his many sons. . This tradition clarifies that his six sons born and grown up out side India. So if this tradition is correct then we have to accept that:-

a) mother of chohan was Muslims by birth or b) Chohan is not real son. perhaps son in law or adpoted son c) claim of Choahan as decendants of Qutab Shah is baseless.

• all the traditions have some issues when we cross check them. Here in this article some one have added Hazrat Sultan Bahu as Awan.His faimly tree claim that Qutab shah had a Son namely Ameer Shah , who was ancestor of Hazrat Sultan Bahu but we don't find Ameer Shah in any of these traditions.

Ghazanfaralvi (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Ghazanfaralvi by Averroist

As there is no concept of academic research in our society and therefore no research was made with regard to auxiliary unit in the army of Mahmud of Ghazni, but as the word was used by a British author of Roman heritage, here are;
Types of auxiliary unit in the army of ancient Rome

• Roman cavalry
  
• Alares
  
• Cataphract
  
• Clibanarii
  
• Dromedarii
  

Now please tell me where Awans stand in this context.

Averroist (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Averroist . recheck your earlier comments while other editors agree that there were thousands of Helpers but you insist that Qutab Shah and his sons were the only “helpers“.
• The Roman Cavalry , Alares, Vataphract, Clibanarii and Dromedarii which you mentioned were a kind of regular regiments raised before or during war. Hope you have carefully read the relevant articles regarding them .
• If you consider that Auxillary as reserve army or a kind of civil armed force then you have to admit that “Awan” "the helpers" are multi race people . So you have to give up claim of Arab origin.
• Moreover for common man Rangers, and Civil Armed Forces are equal to Soldiers , they never consider them “Helpers”, or the people of civil armed forces never consider themselves as “Helpers” But a cook, a person of medical team or accounts even wearing colorful army uniform will consider himself “Helper of Soldier”.
• Averroist, When Awans unanimously claim that they were “Helpers” not the Soldiers then where your claim stands.

Regards Alamsherkhan Alamsherkhan (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of what you have to say, Ghazanfaralvi, it actually isn’t “very easy” to draw the conclusions you have, as everything you have stated, constitutes nothing but conjecture. And for the record, I am not making any cast iron claims myself, just pointing out what is an overriding flaw in your argument. The simple fact is, in the absence of incontrovertible evidence or substantive source material, yours is just yet another theory, nothing more, nothing less.

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

When Awan’s got settled at Mianwali

Chakrala is the oldest and the largest village a seat of Hindu Tribe Chikar , of Mianwali District in the Punjab province of Pakistan.It was captured by Local Muslims in the 13th century by the aid of invaders from the North-western tribes. Chakrala is also a Union Council (administrative subdivision) of Mianwali Tehsil and is located 10 miles (16 km) away from the Mianwali Talagang road at 32°6'0N 72°22'0E]. The area is has been predominantly inhabited by Awan tribes for the last six centuries.

• This text above is produced from another Wikipedia article regarding village Chakrala . During 13th century Sadar karabogha Khan head of Khattaks along with Niazi and Awan tribes conquered the area's at the west Bank of river Indus. Awan had their first settlement in Kohat and Mianwali areas. Later during 16th century these advanced towards eastren side of Indus river including Attock , Chakwal, Shah pur and Sargodha and the Awan shifted to new settlement, leaving their previous settlement for Saghri.s. More probably 13th century was the time when they got the title of helper. Please be noted that Chakrala is the birth place of lance naik Sher Shah Awan VC (Victoria Cross).

Zarrigul (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Awan’s do keep khel System

Ahmed Gul Khel is a name of a small clan of Sighaal Awan tribe. The small hamlet where the clan resides is known as Dhoke Ahmed Gul Khel which is a part of Kalri Village in Tehsil and District Mianwali of Punjab, Pakistan. This is situated at distance of 37 Kilometers from Mianwali off the Rawalpindi-Mianwali Road. Nearby village of Rikhi is part of mauza Kalri. Namal Lake and Namal College are also at a short distance from Ahmed Gul Khel. This village is part of Awankari Region. Awankari is an exclusive area of Awan tirbe between Mianwali, Attack, Chakwal, Khushab and Jhelum Districts. Awankari is also dialect of Awan tribe of Awankari Region. This village belongs to Ahmed Gul Khel subtribe of Sighaal Awan Tribe. Sighaal Awan tribe is exclusively found in Mauza Kalri and parts of Namal area. Famous Personalities of this clan are • Haji Sub. (R) Malik Fateh Khan Awan Late served in British Army and Pakistan Army. He was awarded Indian Order of Merit, The Italy Star and half a dozen other medals for his bravery during World War II. • Malik Muhammad Yar Awan Late • Mehr Khan Awan belonging to Ahmed Gul Khel subtribe is resident of this area. He holds Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology and B.Sc. Medical Technology from National Institute of Health, Islamabad, B.A. From the then Government College, Lahore, M.A. Economics and M.A. History (European) from University of the Punjab, Lahore, and MBA with specializations in Human Resource Management, Marketing and Finance from Virtual University of Pakistan. He has more 15 years of experience in the field of General Management and Human Resource Management. Text produced from Wikipedia article Ahmed Gul Khel Awan. Zarrigul (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Zarrigul, since you have reproduced text from a Wikipedia article in an effort to support your contention, let me do the same as you; the following is extracted from the article, Shadia, Punjab:

The dwellers of this village are mostly from Zameendars consisting of Janjua clan which are sub divided as Malu khel, Phato Khel, Mulke Khel, Mehrwan Khel, Anwar Khel, Azmat Khel, Aziz Khel, Sikandar Khel, Moosi Janjua, Laungi Janjua, and Bejari Janjuas etc.

Are you now going to claim that a Rajput tribe such as the Janjua, are of Pashtun origin, or descended from the Ancient Israelites? Rawalpindi Express (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion activity to notice

someone agin started deletion and keep it upto a single claim of origin. if he was needing to add in Arab origin regarding Qutab Haider with reasonable secondary evidence, may be no one have objection but new additions are not supported by evidence and he have deleted the fully refferenced claim as Son of soil. it is unfair to altered the references or add personnal comment inside reference which the meaning/purpose of reference

regards Alamsherkhan (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Dear sirs Today i edited and removed some names from the v overly long list of 'notable Awans' which, in my opinion, doesnt always meet Wiki notability standards and is somewhat biased and self-promotive--in good faith; and I also noted some basic problems therein which Ive pointed out, including factual fallacies eg listing of 'Malik Atta Muhammad Khan' as Awan, whereas he is from the Gheba tribe and so on. However, this list was fully reverted and I am sad to see this, as its not really encyclopedic content. I would please request that some one might take note of this thanks Asad u Khwaja (prof retd) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.104.201 (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear 'Sinebot' thanks I have made a note of your instructions regarding signing a post. 39.54.104.201 (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Asad U Khwaja (Prof Retd)39.54.104.201 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alleged “bias”

Mr. Khwaja

From my experience of editing this article over the course of almost six years, it is widely recognised amongst Wikipedia editors that if the name of an individual for whom an entry exists on Wikipedia, is included in a list of prominent personalities (within an article dealing with, for example, a specific Punjabi tribe), then generally the inclusion of such a name is valid and warranted. Moreover, it is largely inaccurate to describe the list of names in question, as “self-promotive” – very few of the individuals in question, could realistically have added their names to the list that is being disputed, and this is underlined by the fact that some of these names were added after the respective individuals had long since passed away. Furthermore, nothing more has been added to the brief description of each of the individuals listed, save for their achievements, or what makes them notable figures (and even this information has been presented in an entirely neutral manner). As for the list of names being “unencyclopedic,” that is a moot point, especially in light of the first point I have made. However, in the interests of “factual accuracy” I have removed the name of Malik Ata Muhammad Khan (though his name was only ever included, because upon interviewing him, Michael Palin referred to him as the “Prince of the Awans,” for which proof had already been furnished). I have also removed the names of individuals for whom I was unable to find evidence of them belonging to the Awan tribe (even though it may be something that is known amongst Awans themselves), which could be referenced. Having said this, it is obvious that references establishing that they are Awans, does not have to be provided for those who surnames bear the name of the Awan tribe, nor for individuals such as Malik Amad Khan or Sumaira Malik, whom it has been pointed out, are the grandchildren of Malik Amir Mohamamad Khan.

As for the allegations that the article isn’t neutral, written from a “fan’s point of view”, or that it contains “wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information,” this simply isn’t true. The section dealing with the origin of the Awan tribe, deals with nothing more than the traditional belief of the Awans regarding their origins, and a range of (reliable and fully referenced) opinions expressed by a number of commentators in relation to this (both those that support and oppose the contention made by the bulk of the tribe – hence, it is entirely balanced). The section dealing with the history of the Awans, deals with a salient feature of the tribe, that is, a reputation it has built up over the centuries, in terms of its martial prowess, and the significant contribution it has made to the armies of ruling Muslim dynasties in India, the British Raj, and the state of Pakistan. More importantly, “independent sources that support the characterization,” have been cited in order to support and emphasise these points; to recap:

- “The Awans have a strong martial tradition,(Ali, I., 2003, ‘The Punjab under Imperialism, 1885-1947’, Oxford University Press, p.114.) and as a corollary, a widely-held reputation for courage. According to Sir Malcolm Darling, the Awans are the:”

Bravest of soldiers, toughest of cultivators and matchless as tent peggers. (Darling, M.L., 1934, Wisdom and Waste in the Punjab Village, Oxford University Press, p.46.)

“Christophe Jaffrelot states:”

The Awan deserve close attention, because of their historical importance and, above all, because they settled in the west, right up to the edge of Baluchi and Pashtun territory. Legend has it that their origins go back to Imam Ali and his second wife, Hanafiya. Historians describe them as valiant warriors and farmers who imposed their supremacy on the Janjua in part of the Salt Range, and established large colonies all along the Indus to Sind, and a densely populated centre not far from Lahore. (Jaffrelot, C., 2004, A History of Pakistan and Its Origins, Anthem Press, p.205)

- “According to Denzil Ibbetson, the Awans may well have accompanied the forces of Babur, and the Awans of Jalandhar, who claimed to have shifted from the Salt Range at the behest of one of the early Emperors of Delhi, were particularly notable for being in the imperial service at Delhi.” ( Ibbetson, D., 2001, ‘Punjab Castes’, Sang-e-Meel Publications, p.170.)

- “The Awans were amongst those the British considered to be ‘martial races’”... (Bhatia, S., 1987, ‘Social Change and Politics in Punjab, 1898-1910’, Enkay Publishers, p.87.)

- “In particular, the Awans formed part of the core Muslim group recruited by the British during the First and Second World Wars.” (Talbot, I., 1996, ‘Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India’, Curzon Press, p.38.)

- “Contemporary historians, namely Professor Ian Talbot (Talbot, I., 1996, Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India, Curzon Press, p.38.), and Professor Tan Tai Yong (Tan, T.Y., 2005, The Garrison State: The Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849-1947, Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd, p.74.), have authored works that cite the Awans (amongst other tribes) as being looked upon as a martial race by not only the British, but neighbouring tribes as well.

“With reference to the British Raj's recruitment policies in the Punjab, vis-à-vis the British Indian Army, Tan Tai Yong remarks:”

The choice of Muslims was not merely one of physical suitability. As in the case of the Sikhs, recruiting authorities showed a clear bias in favour of the dominant landowning tribes of the region, and recruitment of Punjabi Muslims was limited to those who belonged to tribes of high social standing or reputation - the 'blood proud' and once politically dominant aristocracy of the tract. Consequentially, socially dominant Muslim tribes such as the Gakkhars, Janjuas and Awans, and a few Rajput tribes, concentrated in the Rawalpindi and Jhelum districts in the northern Salt Range tract in the Punjab, accounted for more than ninety per cent of Punjabi Muslim recruits. (Tan, T.Y., 2005, ‘The Garrison State: The Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849-1947’, Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd, p.74.)

- “The Pakistani military has always heavily recruited Awans and as is consistent with the past, the tribe continues to produce a considerable number of recruits who occupy many of the senior-most ranks of the Pakistani Army. According to Philip Edward Jones:”

The Awan Tribe is perhaps the most heavily recruited tribe for the Pakistan Army. (Jones, P.E., 2003, The Pakistan People's Party: Rise To Power, Oxford University Press, p.61.)

Exactly what personal reasons or biases would individuals of non-Awan origin such as Darling, Jaffrelot, Ibbetson, Tan, and Jones, have for stressing the reputation that the Awan tribe has long held vis-a-vis bravery and martial ability, or for emphasising the considerable and distinguished contribution it has made to a number of military forces over the course of hundreds of years? (Indeed, an overwhelming contribution when it comes to the Pakistani army). It goes without saying that they may not apply to each and every Awan, but nevertheless, these happen to be outstanding features of the tribe (something that I can certainly attest to, that members of other tribes in parts of Pakistani Punjab, also acknowledge), which is why they have been remarked upon by a range of commentators. Nonetheless, I have removed additions, which although valid, have not been fully referenced (and where mention of the reputation of the Awans when it comes to courage, had not been referenced, amendments have been made, and references cited).

The remainder of the article deals with surnames and titles that members of the Awan tribe adopt, the fact that an outstanding feature of the tribe (also central to its identity) is that it is entirely comprised of those who profess the Muslim faith (or at the very least, were raised within it – and this point is also supported through the use of fully referenced citations), and the geographical distribution of the tribe; no reasonable objections can be raised in regards to any of this.

It is ironic that your own personal opinions have led you to arbitrarily remove names from the list of prominent personalities, as well as images from the photo gallery – though you may have had cause to object to Malik Atta Muhammad Khan’s name featuring within this article (on the basis that he is a Gheba), what reason did you have, for example, to delete the name of Ameer Faisal Alavi (about whom Wikipedia not only carries an article, but who was also a high-ranking figure within the Pakistani army of enough importance, to warrant obituaries – and to be widely discussed - in British newspapers and periodicals), or to remove Babar Awan’s image from the photo gallery (a senior-raking politician, who is constantly featured in the Pakistani media, print and television alike)? As such, I have made appropriate changes to the list of prominent personalities, and the photo gallery. Rawalpindi Express (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Awan (tribe). This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Dear User:Rawalpindi Express, hello! You really seem to have made a 'life's work' of this article on the Awan tribe, and spent many long years here on Wikipedia, on this one-article mission--and I think that much of what youve said above, in response to Khwaja sahib, makes sense. I also believe that if someone has a properly sourced and verifiable article and comes up to Wiki 'notability' standards, then well and good.

However, if you dont mind my saying so, please--there is certainly an element of bias in the article, in as much some of the language is concerned. Im not saying that the Awans arent 'brave' or a 'martial race' or whatever, etc-and i dont dispute that the British colonial writers you cite agree with what you have to say, but you must please honestly read your own article and admit that youve used certain phrases and expressions that do reflect a somewhat skewed/biased , or let us say 'pro-Awan' stance, no? The very fact of your having spent so many years, just on this one article, and adopted a combative/protective/exclusive stance towards it, is ample testimony to this. And, additionally, I must also please say that your response to Khwaja sahib, above, couldve been couched in rather less virulent and aggressive language. As an editor here he has as much right to express his opinion and make edits as you have, or as any of us have, to any article, and no one 'owns' an article on Wikipedia. An 'article' isnt as important here as human beings, and their rights of expression, and I do hope that you will kindly remember this in future. Thank you, and best of luck with your editing. Khani100 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Hi Khani100

1. I do not consider this article to belong to me, and there are plenty of instances where I have built upon contributions made by other editors. Furthermore, a significant portion of the most recent additions to the article, have not even been made by me.

2. I really don’t see of what relevance it is just how long I have spent editing the article in question, nor the number of articles I may or may not have chosen to contribute to.

3. For you to maintain that the stance I have adopted towards said article is “combative,” “protective,” or exclusivist, is not an opinion I agree with, but you’re entitled to it – there are other editors who would disagree with you on this point, such as those who have expressed an appreciation in terms of the contributions I have made to this article, and the efforts I’ve made to ensure that it conforms to certain standards.

4. As for what you consider to be biases within the article, I have taken these points on board, and will amend the article accordingly. However, I would like to point out that authors such as Christophe Jaffrelot, Ian Talbot, Tan Tai Yong, and Philip Edward Jones (whose works have been cited), are not commentators belonging to the colonial era, yet to varying extents, they too have highlighted either the strong martial reputation the Awan tribe has cultivated over the centuries, or the significant contribution it has made to a number of armed forces during the same period of time - in other words, this a salient historical feature of the tribe, and reference being made to this is warranted.

5. I wholeheartedly disagree with you, as per your claims that my response to Mr. Khwaja was “aggressive” and “virulent” in its tone – however, if that is how you construed my words, then so be it. As it is, I am sure Mr. Khwaja is capable of defending himself. Moreover, I actually did make amendments to the article, that he recommended.

6. There has not been a single instance of me preventing someone from expressing their opinions via this talk page, nor making constructive edits to the article, so there really is no reason for you to emphasise this.

7. I find it somewhat ironic that you are attempting to give me a lecture on etiquette, when I find some of what you have to say, quite condescending. However, I am sure that you will appreciate that this is my opinion, so just as I didn’t take offence to what you had to say (though I did counter your claims, as I am entitled to), I trust you won’t object to me presenting my own take in regards to the concerns you have raised.

Regards Rawalpindi Express (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to User:Rawalpindi Express's Note, above

Dear User:Rawalpindi Express, Hallo, and thanks for your long response/reply. And for stating your position. May I please answer all your comments above, very briefly please?

1. Although you very generously state that you dont think that you 'own' this article, it seems to me at least that going by the previous history and track record of this article since its creation (by you i believe?) as well as various discussions here, on this talka page, that that isnt exactly the case, if youll excuse my saying so again. Some element of 'pssession' is certainly there and that is reflected in your definitely (at times) agressive style of responding to any changes or comments that others make, and that disagree with your pre-conceived notions.

2. There is certainly some 'relevance' in my opinion, please, that I have the right to express here, to the fact that over approx 6 years youve only spent time on this one article, or at least most of your time on it, which relates to the fact that a 'sense of ownership' tends to creep in, wittingly or unwittingly. Wouldnt you agree, objectively and honestly speaking?

3. Thank you, am glad youve taken note of some of the changes/ideas proposed by other editors.

4. I think that Ive already answered this in a diferent way, and I appreciate your deep knowledge of your passion (i.e. the subject of this article) but I guess other people, with some knowledge of some sort, at least have the basic right to express their legitimate disagreement and/or suggestions, and if you feel that youve done the right thing then good!

5. I am still of the opinion that you were a trifle short and rather aggressive in your address to Khwaja sahib, if you dont mind my saying so. It is an established principle here on Wikipedia not to 'bite' newcomers, or people acting/writing in good faith. And I believe any responsible and mature editor/user would comply with this, and any such editor/user has the absolute right and liberty to bring any violations of basic Wiki etiquettes to the notice of the editor/user who is in breach of this; and I think I have actually done the right thing. There is an acceptable tone of language and behaviour and no browbeating, bullying or intimidation allowed. Im sorry that you feel that I 'misconstrued' your remarks/attitude.

6. I have already answered this above.

7. My dear sir, you have every right to express your opinion and Im sorry if you found anything I said 'condescending'-- in fact, that isnt the case, but I felt duty bound to warn you to adhere by Wiki standards since in my opinion, a violation was there, and if you feel offended by that, I must once again express my profound regret/s.

With very best wishes and regards Khani100 (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Response to Khani100

Hi Khani100

I really do feel that here are many misconceptions you have regarding my conduct and my contributions to this article, chief amongst these being that you are under the impression that I created this article – I did not. I actually do not have any “pre-conceived notions,” and though this is an opinion you are entitled to, I do not consider it to be valid. As for my “aggressive style of responding to changes or comments that others make,” I have already pointed out on my own talk page, that I have only ever responded as such, when individuals have resorted to attacking me on a personal level (thus demonstrating the shortcomings in their own arguments, or baseless accusations they have levelled at me), or when the same individuals have repeatedly made changes to the article that constitute vandalism (despite previous attempts made on my part, to appeal to them in a perfectly civil and polite manner, not to persist with their non-constructive actions. Needless to say, these appeals were ignored); furthermore, I am not the only one to have taken exception to the manner in which these individuals have behaved, to the extent that there were other editors who lent me their support in opposing the actions of the individuals you make reference to (with some going so far as to report these individuals to senior Wikipedia editors). In fact, so incensed were other editors by the continual vandalism of the article by the individuals you maintain that I was harsh towards (which I simply don’t agree with – making a point forcefully as I sometimes do, is perfectly acceptable in my opinion), that a campaign was actually launched on Facebook by a number of concerned Awans, asking members of various Awan groups, to assist me in protecting the integrity of the article. There is a history to the interactions that have taken place on this talk page that you seem to be unaware of, especially in regards to the harmonious relationship I share with other editors who have contributed to, or taken an interest in, this article.

I didn’t take issue to you expressing the fact that I have spent a considerable amount of time working on this one article alone, I just said that I didn’t consider it to be a relevant point – however, you have now placed your comments within a specific context, which I appreciate, as I now understand where you are coming from. As for the question you posed, if you want an honest answer, then although I cannot speak for others in a similar position, as far as I am concerned, I have never felt that I “own” this article, "wittingly" or "unwittingly" (and I as I have pointed out before, I have happily worked with others who have made constructive additions to the article, welcoming their contributions, or incorporating them into the article. This remains the case) – that’s an honest and objective answer on my part. All I will add, is that until I made an effort to clean up this article, and to add the vast majority of references to it (as per the requests of senior Wiki editors), it was a complete mess, did not conform to Wiki standards on any level at all, and had been flagged as an article that was cause for concern.

Once again, I disagree with your assessment of the manner in which I responded to Mr. Khwaja. If anything, given that the article page was littered with a number of tags that had been placed there unjustly as a result of Mr. Khwaja’s remarks, and the fact that there were unhelpful actions he himself had taken that contradicted the stance he had adopted vis-a-vis the article, I believe my response to him was perfectly justified. I consider myself to be one of Wikipedia’s “responsible” and “mature” editors, and therefore the last thing I am going to do, is to “bully” or intimidate others. In my opinion, my response to Mr. Khwaja was measured, and there was not a single instance of me launching a personal attack against him, nor did I use crude language when addressing him – thus, as far as I’m concerned, the language I used, and the tone I adopted, was acceptable. However, it is clear that this is a subjective issue, and as straightforward as I attempted to be, my comments are open to interpretation – as such, if you feel that you did the right thing, then fair enough.

It’s okay, there’s no need for you to apologise, nor did I take offence to what you had to say. Personally speaking (for reasons I have gone into above), I think you may have overreacted to what I had to say to Mr. Khwaja. However, I acknowledge that you have been courteous when interacting with me, and though I have misgivings about your actions, your intentions were honest and well-meaning. Even though we are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic, I hope I have now cleared up any misunderstandings.

Best wishes

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Rawalpindi Express, thank you for your very detailed response to my earlier statements. Yes, I do understand what you are saying and appreciate your previous concerns and your on going interest in this article, and have studied/followed some of the previous history of this, too. I think that it's good to attempt to clear the air as it were and Im glad to leave it at that! : ) Once again, thank you for your attention. Very best wishes, Khani100 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

You’re welcome User: Khani100. I too am glad that we managed to clear the air.

Best wishes

Rawalpindi Express (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. This is not controversial. The correct title is Awan (tribe) per WP:DAB since there is only one tribe of that name. —  AjaxSmack  23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Awan (Punjabi tribe) → Awan (Tribe) – I am requesting this move because the Awan tribe did not originate in the Punjab and is not exclusive to the Punjab. I am an Awan from Peshawar belonging to a family that has its known roots here for the past 400 years. There are thousands of Awans in this region and i have never met any whose family moved from the Punjab. A 150 year old shajra in my possession states our origin as Arab and Quraish. Changing its title to Punjabi Tribe i think is misleading and incorrect. So i request that this page title be changed to "Awan (Tribe)" Thank you.

Argument

The Awan tribe may not exclusively inhabit Punjab, and though a significant number of Awans are to be found in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it is a fact that the vast majority of those belonging to the tribe, reside in the Punjab region (and have done so for centuries), where their heartland is to be found – as such, the Awans are essentially considered by historians and anthropologists to be a Punjabi tribe, and just glancing through the references section of the article, bears out this point:

Punjab District Gazetteers: Attock District, 1930

Griffin, L.H., The Panjab Chiefs: Historical and Biographical Notices of the Principal Families in the Territories Under the Panjab Government

Kaul, H., Report on the Census of Punjab 1911

Wikeley, J.M., Punjabi Musalmans

Rose, H.A., A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province

Ibbetson, D., Punjab Castes

Ali, I., The Punjab under Imperialism, 1885-1947

Darling, M.L., Wisdom and Waste in the Punjab Village

Bhatia, S., Social Change and Politics in Punjab, 1898-1910

Talbot, I., Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India

Tan, T.Y., The Garrison State: The Military, Government and Society in Colonial Punjab, 1849-1947

Ahmed, S., Class and Power in a Punjabi Village

Douie, J., The Panjab, North West Frontier Province and Kashmir

All of the above titles have been used and cited in the process of compiling the article, underlining the inextricable nexus between the Punjab region and the Awan tribe. Indeed, Aitzaz Ahsan, in his book The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan, categorically refers to the Awans as a “Punjabi tribe” (Ahsan, A., 1996, The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan, Oxford University Press, p.88.). You have presented your own personal example, so allow me to do the same; I too am an Awan, whose family originates from Punjab, where you will find a far larger proportion of the Awan tribe residing, in comparison to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – and of all such Awans whom I have come across (friends, family, and acquaintances, both in Pakistan, the U.K., and the U.S.A.), each and every one self-identifies as Punjabi (especially ethnically and culturally, and in the majority of cases, linguistically too). It is also pointless trying to establish where the Awans actually originated from, as this is something that the article clearly emphasises is a matter of considerable debate. Furthermore, both my mother and father’s families are also in possession of family trees tracing their respective descent to Arabia and Hazrat Ali, but these documents are not considered to be infallible sources by historians (not that I am demeaning their value).

Originally, the title of this article was Awan (Pakistan). However, another Wikipedia editor changed the title of the article to Awan (Punjabi tribe), and I can only speculate that this was due to an article entitled Awan (Kashmiri tribe) being added to Wikipedia. However, in the interests of respecting the wishes of those Awans such as yourself, who do not identify themselves as Punjabi, I have changed the title of the article to Awan (Tribe), as requested.

Regards Rawalpindi Express (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey

1. Thank you Rawalpindi Express for understanding that Awans are one of the few, or maybe the only tribe that's trans regional, cultural and linguistic in the Pakistani region but we are one tribe and one family. And you are right about the article's title as being Awan (Pakistan) before, so i think having one parent topic as Awan (Tribe) serves the purpose for Awans of every region and sub clan. I hope it will stay that way and if anyone wants to contribute towards Awans of different regions, it must originate from the parent article. Thank you and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeman101 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

2. I agree with Rawalpindi Express that Awans can also be found in other provinces of Pakistan. It is also stated in "Martial races of undivided India," with reference of Joshua Project, with the following table:

N°	AREA	POPULATION
1	PUNJAB	2,807,000
2	NWFP	1,616,000
3	ISLAMABAD	90,000
4	SINDH	52,000
5	BALOCHISTAN	15,000

Reference: Martial races of undivided India By Vidya Prakash Tyagi, p.200

Regards Averroist (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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