Talk:Awan (tribe)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intothefire (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 15 January 2008 (→‎Awans are Chandarbansi Rajput). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1

There are Hindu as well as Sikh Awans living in India in Rajasthan , Punjab and Haryana .

2

The Hindu and Sikh Awnas recount a completely different genealogical heritage than the one recorded in this article. This article may be more comprehensive with the inclusion of the History of the non muslim awans as well . Intothefire 14:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3

Exactly who are these Hindu and Sikh Awans? Being an Awan, I have read up extensively on the history of the Awans and I have never come across any reference to Hindu and Sikh sections of the Awan tribe. Even the various (and highly numerous) Punjab Gazetteers and census tables complied by the British (which provide an exhaustive analysis of Punjab's various ethnic groups, including the Awans) categorically state that the Awan tribe is exclusively Muslim, there not being a single reference to Awans who profess to be Hindus or Sikhs; of course, this does not mean that there are not those of Awan origin who choose to become adherents of faiths other than Islam. I have come across Awans whose families continued to reside in India following the partition of the Subcontinent, but even these rare individuals (the vast majority of Awans are to be found in Pakistan, including those who ancestral villages – before the creation of Pakistan - were to be found in East Punjab) belong to Muslim families. Indeed, Harikishan Kaul, who was the of the opinion that the Awans were of Hindu origin and converted to Islam en masse during the advent of Muslim rule in the Subcontinent, noted in the Punjab census of 1911 that the Awan tribe numbered 425,931 individuals and was comprised entirely of Muslims and thus the tribe was classified as such.

I actually would not be in favour of including the history of Hindu and Sikh Awans in this article because if they do exist, they bear no relation to the Awan tribe that is the topic of this particular article. Moreover, I do not say this because I am antipathetic towards Hindus and Sikhs (quite the opposite, actually) nor because I am religious (I am not).

4

The above comments from some so called awan are based on charm for foreign ancestory. This is and was quite normal in pakistani areas that people have told fake stories about their foreign origin . I have seen awans in pakistan through my life . They carry no physical or facial features of foreign ancestory. But these jackpots always take it charming to associate with themselves some fake fairy tale of some qutab shah who has no historical significance. I can bet that these jackpots were actually of some jatt lineage. And I know that there would be hindu awans as well. But you know pakistani idiot jackpot awans do not look at their skin and faces which clearly show that they are no different from people where they are living.

5

To the idiot who responded above, please point out where I claimed the Awans are of foreign extraction? In fact, I even stated that Harikishan Kaul considered the Awans to have originally professed Hinduism and at some point during the initial advance of Islam into the Subcontinent, converted to the Muslim faith en masse. Because your comprehension skills are as woefully poor as your mode of expression, you fail to grasp the simple point I made, that is, census records stretching all the way back to the era of the British Raj, clearly indicate that the Awan tribe is comprised entirely of (and I use this term as loosely as I can because there are obviously those of Awan origin who have no doubt converted to other faiths) Muslims or at the very least, those with a Muslim background. Hence, the tribe is classified as Muslim.

Instead of dealing in conjecture (and quite frankly, I find it highly amusing that you think I am lying about belonging to the Awan tribe), please produce some credible proof to support your contention that Hindu Awans undoubtedly exist – furthermore, if they do exist, then also provide proof that links them to the Awan tribe that is the topic of the article on the main page.

And stop making sweeping statements. For your information, not all Awans consider themselves to be the descendants of an individual named Qutb Shah (including numerous members of my family). Furthermore, the article on the main page cites those who do consider the claim to Arabian ancestry to be tenable, just as it also cites those whose views regarding the origins of the tribe run contrary to traditional opinion.

As for your comments regarding the physical characteristics of the Awans, this is a moot point. Whilst there are Awans who clearly resemble those (i.e. non-Awans) they live amongst, there are just as many Awans whose physical features are markedly different from the bulk of their non-Awan neighbours. I could present myself as an example because although the majority of South Asians correctly identify me to be of Punjabi origin, there are many (Pakistani and non-Pakistani alike) who, due to my fair skin and facial features, mistakenly think I am from the Middle East. My mother and her sisters are so fair, that it is not only Europeans, but even fellow Pakistanis who incorrectly identify them as being of Iranian origin (they are also often mistaken to be of Kashmiri origin). One of my cousins, whilst stationed in Haiti as part of a UN peacekeeping force, was routinely mistaken to be Arab by Jordanian officers. Another of my cousins is so exceptionally fair - as well as having brown hair and blue eyes - that he is mistaken by the vast majority of people (including Pakistanis) to be of European origin. And just as I could provide many more examples from my family (and both my mother and father are Awans) – and no doubt, other Awan families - I have just as many Awan relatives (including my father) who look no different from their non-Awan, Pakistani/Punjabi neighbours. In other words it’s a pointless exercise.

As for you betting that the Awans are of Jat origin, it quite clearly states on the main page of this article that, "The findings of the geneticist, S. Dorning, suggest that the Awans are ethnically distinct from Jats and Rajputs."

Now, if you have nothing sensible to say, please desist from making any further contributions to this topic.

6

I have to agree with the above. I am too am an Awan who is open to the idea that our tribe may well be descended from Hindu ancestors. However, I do not discount the possibility that the tribe may also be of Arab origin.

I also agree that there is not much point in trying to draw conclusions in relation to the origins of the Awans by making cursory judgments based on their physical characteristics. As the author above has underlined, Awans vary widely in this regard. It should also be noted that over the course of time, through a process of intermarriage with indigenous groups, even those sections of society that are or claim to be of foreign origin, will come to acquire physical features that are identical to the bulk of the inhabitants of whatever particular region they happen to reside in.

As stated at the top of this page, there actually is a group of Hindus and Sikhs residing in Indian Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan who identify themselves as 'Awan', but Intothefire is absolutely correct when commenting that, “The Hindu and Sikh Awans recount a completely different genealogical heritage than the one recorded in this article.” In fact, these Hindu and Sikh Awans are actually a sub-clan of the Gujar tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurjar) and being a sub-clan, are relatively small in number. Needless to say, the Awan tribe that is the subject of this article, is distinct to the Gujar tribe. The 'Encyclopedia Britannica' entry on Punjab (Pakistan) recognizes these two groups as being distinct:

“The dominant ethnic groups, which have inhabited the Punjab throughout recorded history, are Jats, Rajputs, Arain, Gujars, and Awan.”

That the Awan tribe that is the subject of this article has long been recognized as a Muslim group is not only evidenced by census records compiled by the British, who referred to the Awans as a “Muhammadan” tribe, and a whole host of sociological and historical studies from the past and present, but the tribe is also the subject of a 1915 study specifically titled, 'Punjabi Musalmans' by J.M. Wikeley, a study that:

“Studies the divisions, origin and ancestry of various Punjabi Musalman tribes, sketches the history of Punjab starting from Alexander’s invasion and provides useful statistical data regarding the population and geographical distribution of the tribes besides tracing the history of Islamic religion and its doctrines. It covers their characteristics, religious observances, festivals, food habits, customs and ceremonies relating to marriage and burial, language, manners, gestures, laws of inheritance, amusement, games and superstitions etc.” https://www.vedamsbooks.com/33620.htm

Malik Awan 02:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

As someone who is somewhat acquaited with Awan history (to an extent), I have to say that I have never come across any Sikh or Hindu Awans, not have I read any credible sources stating this.

Before I am criticised by any editors here, I must stress that I am also open to proof of this. I myself have found Hindu and Sikh counterparts of my own respective tribe, both personally and through evidence (cited evidential proof) of their existence. So I dont discount this happening in other tribes also.

1. I would request that such proof of Hindu and Sikh Awans be provided, then possibly this can be integrated into the article. Intothefire states that they reside in Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana, and that they recount a completely different origin. If that is so, can he provide evidence of what this alternative account is? I can cite a reputable source such as A Glossary of the Tribes & Castes of the Punjab & North-west Frontier Province (by Horace Arthur Rose, Sir Denzil Ibbetson, Sir Edward Maclagan, 1911, p25) where it clearly states that the Awans are (and I quote) "exclusively Muhammadan". Considering the extent of these surveyors, I trust the reliability of this account of the faith at least. Until this is proven wrong undisputably, with cited sources (books, articles etc) then this is a futile argument to engage in.

2. It is interesting to note that there was an ancient Awan dynasty that ruled a province of Iran, which may also correspond somewhat with the tribes foreign origin claim. It is a well known fact that many Iranians settled many times in Afghan and Northern India (Pakistan) areas too. This should be researched and integrated into the article.

3. The article needs to be improved quite a bit (I mean that respectfully as I love reading history of great tribes) but unfortunately this article does contain many inconsistencies;

  • "Cunningham and Kaul looked upon the Awans as a Rajput clan" - He did not. He stated that they were perhaps connected to the ancient Chandravanshi king Anu simply because of the phronetic similarity. This was never confirmed by any sources, espcially not the Awans of any region.
  • "Of all the Muslim groups recruited by the British, proportionally, the Awans produced the greatest number of recruits during the First and Second World Wars" - with respect, this needs to be proven. Gakhars, Janjuas and Tiwanas were called the elite of the Punjabi Musalmans regiment which was the primary unit of recruitment from the Salt Range region. Although Awans were heavily recruited, I have yet to see a figure of their numbers being remarkably higher than every other tribe. If you have undisputed proof of this, I would provide it into the article. Until then, this needs to be modified.
  • "Timur eventually defeated Ilyaas after nearly two months of fighting and a heavy loss of life on both sides. Timur was so impressed by Ilyaas' courage and bravery that he wrote about him in his memoirs." - Amir Timur did not spend two months fighting for a single fort at all in his conquest of India. I have read his memoirs and found no mention of this. The fact that his entire campaign was documented and this was not mentioned anywhere, I believe is quantifiable proof that this did not occur, and may be a false account. In this case, I believe this should be removed, before any further knowledgeable editors come across this, and criticise this article further.

4. The tribal leader, the current Nawab of Kalabagh contains names such as Rai and Harkaran in his lineal tree. This is further also stated in this book India in Transition by M. G. Nene, S. M. Barde, 1948, on p269. Again, this needs to be explored.

5. I have read in many books of how Awans, Kokhars and Khattars all claim common ancestry with each other (which they also corroborated to local researchers during the British Colonial era) and also all claimed Qutb Shahi origin. Yet this has not been mentioned in the article, or explored. It is certainly suspect why all would claim this, yet it is known that the Kokhars and Khattars have Sikh counterparts. If anything, one source stated they meant Qutb Shah as in Qutb Ud din Aibak himself! (which can ofcourse never be the case as he had no issue).

In my humble opinion, with the greatest respect to all brothers, I think it would be beneficial if you concentrated on improving your article with proofs, sources and cleaned up some of the language clarifications too. I have added a proof citation tag, in an aid for other users who may have sources to come and help too.

These are all pointers and not meant to hurt anyone's pride. I know discussing ancestry can be a very touchy subject. Apologies in advance for any offence, as absolutely none was intended. Good luck brothers. --Raja 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raja

Hi Raja

I can’t speak for all Awans, but I have no objections to the points you have raised. I will also do my best to address the issues you have raised and of course, others are welcome to do the same.

I have already made reference to the subject of Hindu and Sikh Awans (I have had to register a slightly altered username as a result of forgetting my original password), but having made a further study of this issue, I believe that confusion may have arisen as a result of figures produced by the Joshua Project (an evangelical organisation). According to the JP, of the Awans that are to be found in India, a total of forty-five thousand declare themselves to be Hindu. I raised the issue with the JP, via E-mail, drawing its attention to the fact that there is a sub-clan of the Gujar tribe called Awan and that the relatively small numbers of Hindu Awans recorded by the JP would suggest that these individuals are members of the aforementioned sub-clan. I also raised the same concerns as you have, with the JP, stressing that according to census records stretching all the way back to the era of the British Raj, the Awan tribe is exclusively Muslim. Bill Morrison of the JP sent me the following response:

“We have checked further, and there appears to be an error in our data. Upon a second review of the data we realize that there is little evidence of Hindus among the Awan."

"We will correct this error on our website within a few weeks, and we apologize for the error."

Bill Morrison

Joshua Project

Given the above, I agree with you when you say that it is futile debating this particular issue.

As for the ancient Awan dynasty that ruled a province of Iran, I too have come across this, specifically in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. However, although you make some valid points, until someone can expand upon this, I am not sure if it can be integrated into the article.

I don’t have Kaul’s analysis to hand, but as for Cunningham, he most definitely did identify the Awans as a Rajput tribe. This is categorically stated in the Punjab Gazetteer, Jhelum District:

“General Cunningham holds the Awans to be Rajputs who were settled here long before the time of Alexander.”

Besides, the article presents a number of differing views regarding the origins of the Awans and does not make any definite claims one way or the other. I also don’t understand how citations can be provided for tribal traditions regarding the history of the Awans, much of which is based on oral history. I also don’t see why citations need to be provided for the section of the article that deals with differing theories as to the origins of the Awans, when the names of the various authors who have espoused their views in relation to this topic (in particular, those who maintain that the Awans may well be of Arab origin), have been clearly mentioned.

I don’t know who originally included the point about Awans, proportionally, producing the greatest number of recruits (amongst Punjabi Muslims tribes) during the First and Second World Wars, but I can vouch for the fact that I myself have come across this point whilst I was a student at the School of Oriental and African Studies. The author who elaborated upon this matter was an Englishman who had served in the British Indian Army and his book deals with the creation of Pakistan, with special reference to the Punjab (hence his comments about recruiting patterns. The book also deals with the rivalry between various Punjabi Muslim tribes). I don’t have the book at hand, but I can make an effort to get hold of it and produce the author’s comments verbatim. Nevertheless, based on this author’s comments, the points included in the article are valid.

Whilst there is no dispute that Gakhars, Janjuas and Tiwanas formed the core group from which the British drew recruits in the Salt Range, it must be stressed that the Awans also formed part of this core group. Khaled Ahmed, Consulting Editor of the Friday Times, authored an article entitled, Why is Punjab “pro-military” and “anti-democratic”? where he mentioned:

“Much admiration was reserved for the Muslims of the Salt Range including Jhelum and Rawalpindi, led by Gakhars – who fought against the mutineers in Delhi in 1857 – the most preferred tribes were the Tiwanas, Awans and Janjuas.” http://if-tsp-threads.blogspot.com/2006/06/tsp-news-and-discussion.html

Ian Talbot also mentions in his book, Khizr Tiwana: The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India:

“In addition to Aitchison, Khizr and his father shared the experience of close ties with the ‘family’ regiment. They attached great importance to their honorary commissions in the regiment which bore their name. Umar both served the regiment in overseas engagements and actively encouraged the Tiwanas, Awans and other ‘martial castes’ to enlist.”

As for Rajputs and Awans occupying the highest ranks of the Pakistani Army, although I may not know who originally included these comments in the article, once again I have also come across this point elsewhere, namely a magazine called Al-Awan, the editor of the magazine, Captain M. S. Awan being the author of the comments.

According to an article on Timur, carried by Wikpedia:

“Timur's invasion did not go unopposed and he did meet some resistance during his march to Delhi, most notably with the Sarv Khap coalition in northern India, and the Governor of Meerut. Although impressed and momentarily stalled by the valour of Ilyaas Awan, Timur was able to continue his relentless approach to Delhi, arriving in 1398 to combat the armies of Sultan Mehmud, already weakened by an internal battle for ascension within the royal family.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur

However, I cannot comment any further on the above.

As for Awans featuring prominently in the armies of the Slave Dynasty and the Khilji dynasty during the Delhi Sultanate period, according to Punjab Castes:

“The Jalandhar Awans state that they came into that district as followers of one of the early Emperors of Delhi who brought them with him from the Salt-range; and it is not impossible that they may have accompanied the forces of Babur. Many of them were in former times in the imperial service at Delhi, keeping up at the same time their connection with their Jalandhar homes.”

It is true that the name Rai Harkaran appears in the family tree of the Nawabs of Kalabagh and the same holds true for a number of Awan families (i.e. the presence of Hindu names in their family trees), nonetheless, through their family trees, all still trace their origins back to Qutb Shah. Furthermore, I don’t see the purpose of exploring the issue any further, especially as the article does not discount the possibility that the Awans may be of Hindu origin (i.e. the section detailing differing theories). The issue is also very contentious because many of those Awans who do find Hindu names featuring in their family trees, claim that these individuals were Muslims who had adopted Hindu names according to local custom.

Again, I don’t see the purpose of referring to Khokhars and Khattars in the article either. Firstly, the article deals with the Awan tribe, not supposed sister tribes. Secondly, attempting to associate the Awans with the Khattars and Khokhars is problematic, particularly because a large section of the Awan tribe does not recognise any ties of kinship with the Khokhars and Khattars. Thirdly, unlike the Khokhars and Khattars, the Awan tribe is exclusively Muslim, making the alleged (by some) link between the three tribes all the more tenuous, especially according to the tribal traditions of the Awans. It should also be remembered that numerous Khokhars and Khattars claim to be Rajputs. Lastly, if Khokhars and Khattars have claimed lineage from Qutb-ud-din Aybak, well, to my knowledge Awans never have.

As for it appearing suspect that Awans, Khokhars and Khattars would claim descent from Qutb Shah, for a number of scholars it simply boils down to the fact that where they predominate, all three groups are neighbouring tribes and professing Islam (at least those sections of the Khokhar and Khattar tribes that do), they do not wish to admit that their ancestors were ‘idolatrous’ Hindus (please note, my comments are not designed to insult Hindus).

Anyhow, for the record, I for one am not offended by what you have to say. Malik Awan 1 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind comments and reply brother Malik saheb. In relation to your replies;
  • You are correct about citations not being possible for Oral traditions. What I would state here, is that unless these traditions are published somewhere (which I am sure, for such an illustrioius tribe they must have somewhere, in the least some info) then this can be used. If not, then because of the encyclopedic rules of wikipedia, it would be best not to use unless proveable, through this means.
  • Khattar/Kokhar point, again I agree with your point. It is interesting to note than the Salt Range people during previous times were not very literate, hence all sorts of connections and origins were stated/conflicted between many branches of the same tribe. I think your explanation on this point is sufficient, to warrant no further addition of this into the article.
  • The British Officer, who's book states the higher numbers and rivlry between tribes, would be beneficial to locate his book. I say this as a heartfelt plea, because it will vouchsafe you later from requests for claims from admins and wiki editors and authorities for the references for this later.
  • Awans highest ranks in Pak army - here, I would still state that this isn't correct and should be changed. Awans occupy all sorts of ranks in the Pakistan Army. It would be best to perhaps reword this into may "Awans occupy high ranks in the Pakistan Army". The est part of high changes the meaning completely here.
  • Timur memoirs - I must stress that using wiki as a source for reference is not allowed on wiki itself (for reasons that this can be/and has been in many cases, abused) I have personally not come across this name in all the work of Timur's India campaign I have come across. Unless this is recorded in a book that can be cited or cross referenced, then I would suggest it's removal.
Otherwise, fine points raised Malik Saheb, I would encourage your endeavour and wish you all the best in making this article of your family even greater. Any help or service that I may be able to provide, please let me know.--Raja 09:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raja II

Hi Raja

Thanks for your sensible and helpful response – I appreciate it, bro.

It’s interesting that you mention sources detailing the oral traditions of the Awans (in regard to their origins) should be cited, because one of these sources, Glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and NWFP by H.A Rose, is already referenced in the article. In fact, if I am not mistaken (I read the book some time ago), Rose even produced a generic family tree that is applicable to all Awans, irrespective of clan divisions within the tribe. Evidently this information was based on oral histories and traditions transmitted by the Awan tribe over the course of centuries and referred to by Rose.

Rose’s work is so thorough that I actually have a photocopy of a couple of pages from his book that provide a rudimentary family tree, of sorts, for the Golera (an Awan clan that my mother belongs to. My father is a Qutbshahi Awan, and although I mention this, it really doesn’t make any difference to me. Yes, I take some pride in my tribal identity, but I have not lost sight of the fact that I am a human being first and foremost and thus do not view any group as being superior to another). To give you an idea of how complete Rose’s work is, below is what he has to say about the Golera:

“GOLERA, a tribe which gives its name to the tract in Rawalpindi so called. It is descended from its eponym, the third son of Qutb Shah, and in Sialkot has four branches, Golera, Kahambarah, Dengla and Mandu.”

“According to Cracroft the Golera are Awans, a statement confirmed by their claim to descend from Qutb Shah.”

I don’t possess the technical know-how that would enable me to reproduce the tree for the Goleras outlined by Rose which illustrates the various branches of the Golera clan, but mention is made of the names Golera (obviously), Bindu, Tar and Banjur (descended from Bindu branch), Dengla and Mandu (descended from the Tar branch), Bharahwin, Samduh and Singi (descended from the Banjur branch) and Kahambarah (descended from the Singi branch).

The Punjab Gazetteer, Jhelum District, 1904, Punjab Castes (both of which I have quoted from earlier) and the Punjab Census Report, 1911, also make reference to the traditional claims of the Awans vis-à-vis their origins. Another work that I have alluded to earlier, Punjabi Musalmans by J.M. Wikeley, if I remember correctly, also makes mention of the Awan’s traditional claim that the nascent progeny of Qutb Shah and his sons, who were born of Hindu mothers (i.e. following Mahmud of Ghazni’s conquest of Northern India), adopted names that corresponded to the tribes and clans their mothers belonged to (and many of those who belong to certain Awan clans, claim that their clans are named after these particular ancestors).

Having taken on board the points you have made, I will cite in the article the relevant sources that I have just mentioned and furthermore, I will also add that Kaul actually stated the Awans may also be of Jat origin (not solely Rajput as presently stated by the article). Following a detailed analysis, Kaul states of the Awans in the Punjab Census Report, 1911:

“The theory of their Jat or Rajput origin, therefore, seems to be the most plausible.”

I do not want to stress this point unduly though, because of the reference the article makes to Dorning’s findings. And as you concede, full citations cannot always be provided for oral histories and traditions, but this does not necessarily mean that these traditions should be discounted and in the case of the article, their inclusion is important and valid; essentially, what I’m stressing is that reference to oral and tribal traditions, in relation to the origins of the Awans, should not be excluded.

As for the British officer’s book that I previously mentioned (and on reflection, he may actually have served in the British Indian Civil Service, rather than the British Indian Army), I understand your concerns and have decided that until I am able to get hold of this book, it would be best to alter the wording of the article so that it indicates that the Awans were heavily recruited by the British during the First and Second World Wars (which cannot be disputed), rather than make unreferenced and conclusive statements regarding the number of Awans that were recruited to the British Indian Army during this period of time. Once I have the book in my possession, I will then be in a position to reproduce the author’s comments, or at the very least, draw upon his comments and be able to point to specific source material. However, I should add that SOAS is my alma mater and as such, it may be a matter of weeks, even months, before I am able to get hold of the book.

It’s clear that the comments regarding Awans, along with Rajputs, occupying the highest ranks of the Pakistani military, are cause for confusion. I actually believe that the editor of Al-Awan was trying to make the point that Awans serving the Pakistani military are to be found occupying many of the highest ranks, as opposed to occupying the highest ranks, period. It is a matter of semantics, but there is a subtle difference between the two statements as the latter can be construed as blanket statement indicating that Awans occupy (even to the extent of exclusivity) the absolute uppermost posts in the Pakistani military, e.g. Chief of Army Staff. This of course is not the case and as you have correctly underlined, Awans occupy a variety of ranks within the Pakistani Army (including senior-most ranks), and of course, the same holds true for other groups serving in the Pakistani armed forces that are also recognised as ‘martial races’. Anyhow, I will alter the wording of the article in order to reflect this, a change that you have acknowledged needs to be made.

I realize that Wikipedia is open to abuse, but I provided the link to the article on Timur because I thought you may be able to trace the author of the comments pertaining to Ilyaas Awan Alvi and perhaps ask him to provide proof for the comments he made. As am I hesitant about completely removing comments made by others, particularly as in this case the comments could possibly be justified, perhaps it would be best if I added a citation request tag.

Once again, thanks for you constructive comments and especially for volunteering to be provide assistance. Like you, I enjoy reading up on the history of the great tribes of the Punjab and I must add that your article on the Janjuas carried by Wikipedia, is excellent. I can honestly say that apart from the Awans (obviously I am biased, LOL!), of all the Punjabi tribes, it is the Janjuas, a very fine race, that I respect the most and it’s heartening that a member of your tribe, Amir Khan (whom I’m a fan of), is proving to be a great role model for British Pakistani youth. By the way, have you read the Men’s Health interview with Amir where he refers to his Janjua origins? Malik Awan 1 22:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Joshua Project figures

Further to my previous contributions to this discussion, I can conform that the JP has now rectified its data to reflect the fact that there is no evidence (at least on the basis of census figures) to show that Awans belonging to the Hindu or Sikh faiths, exist in India.

The JP’s data illustrates that in India, there are 15,000 Awans belonging to the Muslim faith and 60 Awans belonging to the Christian faith.

See: http://www.joshuaproject.net/countries.php

According to the JP’s figures, in Pakistan, there are 4,579,000 Awans who profess the Muslim faith; figures for the number of Awans professing the Christian faith do not exist.

See: http://www.joshuaproject.net/countries.php

All in all, this is pretty much consistent with the findings of highly detailed census records dating to the era of British rule – and onwards – classifying the Awans as an exclusively Muhammadan/Muslim tribe.

I hope this clears any confusion. Malik Awan 1 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent and meticulous info bro.--Raja 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the 1882 census

Supersaiyan thought this may be of interest to you since you have deleted Awan from another article I have carefully been working on . (→Other Punjabi clans - no reference available for this tribe to be from Indian lineage, please discuss this)

Here is a Verbatm quote regarding Awan from Page 25 to page 28 Vol II In the Book "A Glossary of the Tribes and castes of the Punjab and North -West Frontier Province compiled by AH ROSE and based on the Census Report for the Punjab 1883 , by Sir Denzil Ibbetson and the census report for the Punjab 1892 by Sir Edward Maclagan . Published By the Asian Educational Services



A Question for you are there any surnames or sub clan names in Pakistan of Awans other than Awan ?

CheersIntothefire 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi intothefire,

In answer to your question, I am not aware of any subclans of the Qutb Shahi Awans, maybe Malik Awan 1 bhai will be able to help in this respect. But what is clear from this and my family contact of this tribe, their Arab origin theory is not disputed. Thanks for the above details (I have the actual book in my possession too, lol) but how does that help in this article, as the matter has quite clear of the origin?

Having just read some of yor work, I am sorry but I think your article titled Hamsaya is quite derogatory. The Awans are not in actual subjugation to any Pashtun tribe, in fact some workers of the clan do not denote the entire clan being in subjugation (note the Nawab of Kalabagh who is a very well known Tribal leader and powerful warlord in his own right. Had this been uttered in front of him, he would order an execution without relent!). The term Hamsaya is also a Hindi and Urdu one meaning companion, helper too, how about including that?

Secondly, you are adding Awan into the Khatri class of the page Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage. There is no literature AT ALL that I have come across that classifies the Awans as Khatris. Nor is there any literature that openly confirms this tribe is from Hindu lineage. Unless you provide proof for this claim, I strongly suggest you refrain from this. I feel it is poor taste to classify an entire tribe to your whim without their input, or any referenced cited proof. Your above work, is not enough to classify them into Khatris. Holding titles such as Sirdar, Nawab and Malik is not typical of a subjugated tribe.

I await Malik saheb's input.--Raja 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intothefire

Intothefire, as far as I am concerned, there are two issues that you’ve brought up that I’d like to address.

The first relates to your article, Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage. Personally speaking, I do not see what purpose your article serves. In fact, your article reminds me of a criticism one of my professors at SOAS (Professor David Arnold) made of Gandhi, that is, the Mahatma made a point of stressing that the majority of Indian Muslims were the descendants of Hindus who had converted to Islam. As David quite rightly underlined, firstly, the content of Gandhi’s statement was common knowledge and thus, his remarks were essentially pointless. Secondly, the fact that he continually made an issue of this subject, illustrated that he had scant respect for the fact that Indian Muslims, whatever religion their ancestors may have professed, had long enjoyed a unique religious and cultural identity of their own (i.e. largely independent of Hinduism) that should be respected and acknowledged by all. As David maintained, by harking back to - what was largely the distant - past, Gandhi was attempting to deny Indian Muslims their distinctive identity and endeavouring to tie them to a past that they had in the main, long abandoned; in other words, Gandhi was indulging in a futile exercise. Therefore, an attempt on Gandhi’s part to unite Hindus and Muslims on the basis of a shared national identity would have been valid; however, for reasons I have already explained, his attempt to find a bond between Hindus and Muslims on the basis that the latter shared a common religious past as the former, was invalid.

In my opinion, your article is akin to me producing an article on the clans inhabiting Scotland, the vast majority of whose more religiously inclined members profess Christianity, and entitling it Scottish Clans from Druid/Pagan Lineage – would this have any bearing on the present complexion of Scottish clans and their present day realities? Would an entire article devoted to the specific and hypothetical topic I have alluded to, serve any purpose? The point I am making is that religious identities can continue to evolve (needless to say, even the ancestors of those individuals who profess Hinduism, at some point followed faith systems pre-dating the birth of Vedic religion) yet irrespective of this fact, ethnic origins are immutable and it is ethnicity, not religion, which should primarily form the basis for research into a particular group’s origins.

This is not to say that a group’s religious past should be denied, far from it. And to be fair, the majority of Jat and Rajput tribes which mostly count adherents of Islam amongst its members, do make reference to a Hindu past and I do recognise that there are tribes whose roots can conceivably be traced back to Hindu ancestors, yet which continue to deny this. However, individual studies of these tribes do touch upon these points, but to devote an entire article to the topic as you have, is contentious. As you are well aware, your article also lists a number of tribes which count significant numbers of Hindus amongst its members.

Coming onto my own tribe, I appreciate the sentiments you have expressed on this discussion page. In fact, I am amongst a number of Awans willing to concede that my kinsmen, patrilineally, may be descended from Hindus (contrary to tribal tradition). As it is, even Awans who categorically maintain that their patrilineal bloodline can be traced back to Arabia, admit that their matrilineal bloodline can be traced back to Hindu ancestors (and this indeed is the explanation given for the names of certain Awan sub-clans, a point I have touched upon previously). However, given what a number of commentators have to say, I cannot discount the possibility that the Awans may well be of Arab origin. On this page, you’ve reproduced the following comment:

“The originally Hindu character of these names is patent, and not explained away by the tradition that Chauhan and Khokhar took their mother’s name.”

Now, whilst the author of the comments I have quoted may well have made a valid point, on the other hand, he is expressing his opinion and who is to say that tribal tradition vis-à-vis this issue, is not equally, if not more, valid? Moreover, there are those such as Harikishan Kaul who point to the Awans being of Hindu origin because a number of Awan sub-clans carry names that are identical to Jat and Rajput clan names; yet, as the article states:

“The findings of the geneticist, S. Dorning, suggest that the Awans are ethnically distinct from Jats and Rajputs.”

Does the above not negate Kaul’s assertion? Does it lend weight to the findings of commentators who maintain that the Awan claim to Arab origin is plausible? And even if, as some claim, the Awan tribe did convert from Hinduism to Islam at some point in history, why is it that the composition of the tribe is such that it is classified as exclusively Muslim? (as borne out by census figures dating all the way back to the era of British rule in the Subcontinent – and onwards. I think it’s fair to say that most Punjabi tribes that count a Muslim majority amongst its members, still retain a number of Hindu and/or Sikh members. Why not the Awans?) The bottom line is this – a definitive claim regarding the origins of the Awans cannot be made and as the origin of the tribe is open to dispute, to categorically state, in the absence of irrefutable evidence, that the Awans are of Hindu origin, is incorrect.

Now I shall move onto the other point that I believe needs to be addressed, namely your article entitled, Hamsaya. I have to agree with Raja, your article is derogatory and for obvious reasons, I am offended by its content. As Raja has stated, the term hamsaya has a variety of meanings and if you are going to create an utterly pointless article in relation to this term, then its various definitions should also be fully expanded upon and not limited to the narrow definition you have focused on which is also highly misleading. What makes your article all the more problematic is that you have taken a catch-all term used by the Pathan community during a certain period in history and who employed this term when referring to those residing in the NWFP who happened to be of non-Pathan origin. The fact that the use of the term hamsaya in this specific context, exposes the age-old prejudice of the Pathan community towards those whose origins lie outside of the NWFP (or to be more precise, prejudice towards, “Hindkis” an ethnic, not religious, appellation) just highlights that you have devoted an article to a term that is based on a biased generalisation and thus is an inaccurate and unreliable definition (which you have without justification chosen to focus upon). Worse still, you have isolated a pithy statement and attempted to create an article out of it, yet the term itself, as applied in the late nineteenth century by the Pathan community, is now outdated and thus, irrelevant (and it follows your article is therefore irrelevant and honestly speaking, given the facts, how do you justify such a misleading and pointless article?) I have spent a considerable period of time in the NWFP and although there are some Pathans who still look down upon Pakistanis belonging to different ethnic groups, I can tell you that the term hamsaya, applied as a putdown, is now obsolete and makes your article all the more irrelevant.

You have also taken the original comments quoted on this discussion page out of context and put a spin on it that suggests the Awans residing in the NWFP are subordinate to the Pathan community – at the very least you have not made any attempt to clarify that the Awans of the NWFP came under this umbrella term on the basis of their ethnic origins (i.e. non-Pathans, who had shifted to the NWFP from the Punjab) and not their social standing. The suggestion that the Awans were in subjugation to Pathan clans is entirely fallacious. Yes, there were and still are, Awans who belonged/belong to the poorer elements of Frontier society and were/are in the service of the more affluent members of society (and of course this also applies to all the other groups residing in the NWFP), but as Raja correctly points out, this does not mean that the Awan tribe as a whole was or is, in subordination to the Pathan community – or any other community. More importantly, present day sources amply emphasise just how inaccurate, irrelevant and outdated your article is, especially the incorrect perception it creates of the Frontier Awans. One could simply look to the article and discover that Peshawar has produced two Awan MNAs (there may be more), namely Qari Fazal-ul-Rehman Alvi and Malik Mahmood-ul-Hassan Awan. Whilst Peshawar may contain large numbers of Awans, even in regions of the NWFP were Awans, relative to their numbers elsewhere in the province, form a smaller proportion of the population, they still form a group of some importance and influence. For example, in Kaghan:

“Sayeds and Swatis, and to some extent Awans, are influential landowners; others are either tenants or tenants-cum-landowners.” http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4856E/y4856e0g.htm

According to an influential Pakistani organisation's website outlining some basic facts about the NWFP:

“The Afridis, the Mahsuds and the Wazirs are considered to be the best guerrilla fighters in the world, while the Yusufzais and Khattaks are noted for their fine physique and martial qualities. Next to the Pathans are the Awans. They are an agricultural tribe like the Pathans and have many characteristics in common with them. The Awans are scattered over the whole province.” http://www.opf.org.pk/almanac/P/provinces.htm

The above is hardly in line with the impression created by your article.

Most telling is the following, taken from an official Pakistani government publication:

“In Punjab and NWFP, the Kammis were dominated by other castes such as the Awans and the Kharals. The Kammis had no assets, no role in decision-making processes, their cultural status was very low, and their group identity was stigmatised. Furthermore, their livelihood was dependent on the larger society.” http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/ppa-national.pdf

Focusing on the Punjab, the publication (Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment National Report, published by the Planning Commission, Government of Pakistan) goes on to state:

“In Punjab, people from low status hereditary occupational groups (kammis), such as barbers, carpenters, blacksmiths, labourers and cobblers, were excluded in several important ways. They did not participate in decision-making regarding development programmes, attend social gatherings, or benefit from health and education services. In some sites, Kharals were the dominant ethnic group and they actively opposed the development of the kammis. They discouraged the children of kammis from being educated, they did not allow the kammis to go to panchiyat and kammis were denied justice from courts and the police. The kammis of Warala and Khaipur sites, Chakwal District, Punjab were dominated by rich Awans and forced to obey them as they had no land and lived on the Awans' property.” http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/ppa-national.pdf

I hope it is now clear why Raja was right to state that subjugated tribes have no claim to titles such as Nawab, Malik or Sardar, titles that the Awans are able to lay claim to with good reason. Whilst the Awans may not rank as highly as Janjuas and Ghakkars (top of the tree as far as Punjabi Muslim tribes are concerned), nonetheless, the facts bear out that the Awans are widely considered to be a high ranking Punjabi Muslim tribe and renowned for their martial prowess, something that Raja can confirm as the branch of the Janjua tribe that he belongs to, is neighboured by the Awans.

Whilst I do believe that your article on Punjabi Muslims is misguided, what really bothers me is your Hamsaya article. Given all I have said, I feel I should nominate the article for deletion, but I think it would be better if you delete the article yourself. Malik Awan 1 22:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsaya reference

I have taken the liberty to insert a speedy deletion tag on that derogatory article, and have included with respect, your above response also Malik saheb.

I agree the Hamsaya article was inappropriate and caused me deep offence. I am willing to concede that perhaps intothefire in his zeal of efforts to record history, may have not fully understood this term and produced this article in haste. I look forward to his support in it's deletion. Especially in the view he has himself conceded his lack of knowledge on this subject.--Raja 11:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, Raja. Further proof of how the term has been applied in a nonsensical manner is that Fatehjang and Kalabagh, which border the NWFP, are the residencies of Malik Mohammad Asad Khan (the current Nawab of Kalabagh) and Prince Malik Ata Mohammad Khan (hereditary lord and master of Fatehjang and one of Pakistan's most powerful feudal lords) and both men are of course, Awans. It should also be noted that both dynasties have retained their pre-eminent status in regions that are heavily populated by Pathans. Malik Awan 1 15:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malik Awan 1

Carefully read your post . Appreciate your response .

I dont subscribe to the notion that the greatness or success of one community has to be measured by its setbacks in history at the hands of another .The heritage of any community is a mixed bag . Those who choose to see greatness ony in violence and oppression are doomed bear it .

I dont see any edit in Awan that I may have contributed to which has contributed to undermine the Awans .I have mostly posted in the talk page . As to the other article I did not challange your delete when you removed it from the Khatri category .

However I dont subscribe to the superiority of this or that clan or caste either ...the pecking orders ...go through my posts on wikipedia and you will see I have challenged this notion on various articles ... Why do you yourself subscribe to this or that clan having a higher status ?? As to creation of the article Hamsaya , if you believe it is unfair ..go ahead edit it .
Do read my latest post also on raja/supersiyan talk page .

The source I have used for Hamsaya is used extensively on Wikipedia .In the end its only one source please use whichever others you wish to on the article .

Cheers Intothefire 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Intothefire

Intothefire, refer to the comments I made on this page, under the heading “Raja II”; I clearly stated:

“Yes, I take some pride in my tribal identity, but I have not lost sight of the fact that I am a human being first and foremost and thus do not view any group as being superior to another.”

In other words, you have completely misinterpreted my remarks. I don’t subscribe to the belief that one particular clan is superior to another, however, the fact remains that certain ethnic/social groups in the Subcontinent traditionally enjoy a higher standing/status than others, especially in terms of perception (the most salient example of this being the caste system) – that is the point I was making; let's not forget that this was also in the context of wholly subordinate groups not being able to lay claim to titles such as Nawab, Malik and Sardar, titles that Awans rightfully lay claim to.

Why on earth you have to inform me that “those who choose to see greatness only in violence and oppression are doomed bear it” is beyond me. If you look at the article on the Awans itself, although Awans take pride in the fact that they are renowned for their martial abilities (and quite frankly, attempting to deduce from this that Awans revel in warmongering and oppression is entirely disingenuous), the list of prominent Awans includes the names of those who have excelled in a wide variety of spheres – literature, politics etc - as important to the Awan community as are the qualities the community is traditionally lauded for, i.e. its martial abilities and the contribution it made to the British Indian army and continues to make to the Pakistani armed forces.

In fact, the list also includes the names of Zia Awan (President of Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid – LHRLA) and Nasreen Awan a (2006 Nobel Peace Prize nominee), two prominent figures who are actively engaged in tackling oppression. Needless to say, I admire their efforts.

Why are you informing me that the heritage of any community is a mixed bag? On this discussion page, under the heading, “Intothefire” did I not state the following?

“Yes, there were and still are, Awans who belonged/belong to the poorer elements of Frontier society and were/are in the service of the more affluent members of society (and of course this also applies to all the other groups residing in the NWFP), but as Raja correctly points out, this does not mean that the Awan tribe as a whole was or is, in subordination to the Pathan community – or any other community.”

Please note the remarks I have italicised above.

When have I made any claims that you have made edits to the article on the Awans that could be deemed derogatory? I have only ever commented on your article entitled Hamsaya as being derisory to Awans.

Please provide proof that I removed the name of my tribe from the Khatri category, listed on the page detailing your contentious article (Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage which is really a list, rather than an article per se). I did no such thing. Furthermore, you cannot justify categorising the Awans as Khatris.

You state that the source you use for the Hamsaya article is widely used on Wikipedia, yet you don’t seem to understand one simple point – the term as defined by your article is now redundant (not surprising, considering the age of the source material used), something that your article does not clarify. The source you provide a link to is a proverb, based on Pathan prejudices. Tell me, do you think that old derogatory proverbs coined by the English in regard to the Welsh and the Scots, should still carry any weight and relevance in this day and age? The word Hamsaya also has a variety of meanings and though you may claim that others can go ahead and include these definitions in the article, Wikipedia is not a Hindi-Urdu dictionary and to define the term as the Pathans used to, is inaccurate and misleading.

As I said, I have spent time in the NWFP and have to inform you that the term is no longer applied as your article outlines, ergo, your article is irrelevant as it does not recognise present day realities. A significant number of those belonging to social groups that were in subordination to Pathan groups, have now experienced a change in fortunes (as is to be expected over the course of time), yet another reason why the term, as defined by your article, is outdated and irrelevant.

I have demonstrated that I have no problem in admitting that there are Awans who were and still do belong to the poorer elements of society (true of all Punjabi Muslim groups of a generally accepted high social ranking such as the Awans) and as a result, found/find themselves in the service of others, but the spin your article puts on this is to give the impression that this is the general condition of Awans found in the NWFP and its neighbouring regions, which is complete and utter nonsense. Firstly, amongst the descendants of those Awans residing in the NWFP, who were in the service of certain Pathan groups in certain localities (such as Bannu) a significant number have experienced a change in their fortunes. In fact, the source you have provided a link to (not a Pakistani source as you claim, but one that actually dates to the time of the British Raj), at the time of its publication, i.e. the nineteenth century (which underlines that not only is the source of your definition limited and prejudiced, but it is also archaic), patently states in the words of its author, S.S. Thorburn, that the Awans who were classed as Hamsaya by the Bannuchis, as:

“Being better labourers, and more thrifty, they gradually acquired land and increased in numbers, which, naturally enough, has prevented them from being popular amongst the Bannuchis, or rather Pathan Bannuchis, as Hindkais are now, to all intents and purposes, Bannuchis themselves, having been settled from two to five or more generations in the valley. Their old masters are fond of ascribing to them all those vices which we know they themselves possess.”

In other words, if you read that statement I have italicised, even during the nineteenth century, Thorburn comments that the connotations carried by the term Hamsaya during this period of time, were outdated and thus the term, a misnomer, given the change in status experienced by this section of the Awan tribe (Thorburn stating that this section of society should be referred to as Bannuchis and not Hamsaya/Hindkai). Furthermore, Thorburn clearly indicates that the derisory term is based on racist notions, more proof that the term is inaccurate (and note the use of the phrase “old masters” even during that period of time). Also note that Thorburn also makes the point that the Bannuchi Pathans are in no position to vilify others.

In fact, looking at the link to the source you have provided, Thorburn states in his introduction:

“Hindkais are roundly abused… because of their superior thrift and energy in cultivation… as far as I have observed, the Hindkais are most unjustly vilified. Probably motives of jealousy alone have warped the judgement of their former Pathan masters about them.

Even the author of the source you have cited has stated that the manner in which the Pathans addressed those residing in their areas who were of non-Pathan origin (i.e. Punjabi migrants) was unjustified and that the prejudiced Pathan attitudes were the result of jealousy. Moreover, Thorburn has quite clearly stated that by the nineteenth century, when the source you have referred to was compiled, the groups that are the topic of discussion were no longer subordinate to Pathans (hence his reference to former Pathan masters), further proof that your article is irrelevant because hamsaya as defined by your article, is invalid, warped and unreliable.

Your article does not even acknowledge the present day status of the groups that Pathans referred to in such derogatory terms, nor does it make reference to the fact that the term is rooted in bias and that its use cannot be justified; if you had done so, you would have been forced to realise just how outdated the term hamsaya, as defined by your article, is. I gave three specific examples relating to the Awans, including one taken from an official Pakistani government source. To recap:

“Sayeds and Swatis, and to some extent Awans, are influential landowners; others are either tenants or tenants-cum-landowners.” http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4856E/y4856e0g.htm

The above quote relates to Kaghan (NWFP), where Awans don’t even form a significant proportion of the population, yet a clear distinction is made between them and dependant groups.

“In Punjab and NWFP, the Kammis were dominated by other castes such as the Awans and the Kharals.” http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/ppa-national.pdf

The above is from a recent Pakistani government source – note it refers to the position of the Awan tribe in the NWFP as well as Punjab. And before you hurl any accusations, I, like the majority of Awans (at least those I know of, an innumerable number) am not an unfeeling snob who takes pleasure in my kinsmen dominating members of disadvantaged groups.

Even during the nineteenth century, the majority of Awans still managed to maintain a standing that often led them to being virtually indistinguishable from the larger Pathan community, a situation that continues to this day, hence the quote I reproduced:

“Next to the Pathans are the Awans. They are an agricultural tribe like the Pathans and have many characteristics in common with them.” http://www.opf.org.pk/almanac/P/provinces.htm

And as I stressed earlier, what really makes a mockery of the term hamsaya, as defined by your article and applied to tribes such as the Awans who either resided within the NWFP or neighboured (something that your article alludes to) the Frontier Pathans, is that in regions of the Punjab such as the districts of Attock (where Fatehjang is located) and Mianwali (where Kalabagh is located) that border the NWFP, Awans maintained and continue to maintain a dominant position despite the heavy presence of Pathans within these regions and across the border in NWFP. Again, to recap:

“Fatehjang and Kalabagh, which border the NWFP, are the residencies of Malik Mohammad Asad Khan (the current Nawab of Kalabagh) and Prince Malik Ata Mohammad Khan (hereditary lord and master of Fatehjang and one of Pakistan's most powerful feudal lords) and both men are of course, Awans. It should also be noted that both dynasties have retained their pre-eminent status in regions that are heavily populated by Pathans.”

I am sorry, but the above facts, make a mockery of the term hamsaya when used as a term to describe Awans living on the border of the NWFP as being subordinate to any group (as your article suggests), let alone Pathans. As I said earlier, you have created your article by taking comments relating to the use of the word hamsaya amongst nineteenth century Pathan society, out of context.

And contrary to your claim, the article cannot be “suitably amended and developed to accommodate a broader scope.” Firstly, Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary, and the word hamsaya, in reality, is nothing more than a Hindi-Urdu term with a variety of mundane, everyday meanings. Secondly, your definition of the term, as has been described, relies on a single, narrow definition of the term that is also happens to be racist and more importantly, erroneous and thus does not deserve inclusion in any article outlining definitions of the term, especially as the term itself, as defined by your article, is now obsolete and null and void, i.e. it does not reflect present day realties – in fact, even the author of the source you referred to states that the use of the term as a derisory reference to “Hindkais” was outdated in the nineteenth century. Lastly, when even the author of the source you provided a link to comments that the use of the word Hamasya as defined by your article, is unjustified, misleading, based on jealously and prejudice and outdated (even at that time it did not reflect the reality of the situation), then not only is your article irrelevant and misleading, but it also most certainly deserves to be deleted.

To reiterate, the article is inaccurate, anachronistic, skewered, and offensive to Awans because of the false impression it creates and thus serves no purpose at all. Malik Awan 1 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Census figures

Citations have been provided detailing contemporary census figures for the Awan tribe. To say otherwise is disingenuous and the best available source material has been used. As has been alluded to on this discussion page, the Joshua Project does make an effort to ensure the figures it presents are accurate and where necessary, makes adjustments reflecting this fact. Refer to Bill Morrison’s comments above. Furthermore, there is very reliable proof of the Awans being classified as an exclusively Muslim tribe, dating back to the time of the British Raj and the sources citing this fact have been listed at the foot of the article. This information, gleaned from census date collated by the British Raj, has been referred to and is also available on this discussion page.

The simple fact is, data to show that there Hindu and Sikh elements of the Awan tribe did not exist when the British governed India, a fact that was also commented upon at the time and this still holds true. Figures that do exist for the Awan tribe, from the past and present, confirm this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.165.2 (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the actual census sources. If we cannot find reliable sources, then the information doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. --Ronz 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked the first use of this unreliable source as failing to pass verification as well. It will be removed if someone cannot explain what the sources verifies and how so. --Ronz 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetteer of the Attock District 1930

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite my dear! Even Muslim Janjuas, Muslim Gakhars and many Punjabi clans hired Brahmins for prayer work because it was institutional in those days. In fact, many Hindu clans gave alms and hired many Muslim Faqirs for prayers etc, does this make the Hindu clans Muslim now? Obviously not lol. One of my most illsutrious ancestors was known as Malik Darwesh Khan. Now by this name it should mean he is 100% Afghan, Turk or Persian. Yet he was a Janjua Rajput. So the argument about Hindu names is a poor one. Muslims never saw Hindu names with a religious reverity. Today many Muslims have Hindu names. My own Muslim clan has many Raja's called Arjun, Bagga, Sanghar and Ajmal, etc. and yet I assure you they are 100% Muslim lol. Therefore the Kalabagh Nawabs having Hindu names is not conclusive proof, but a misinformed opinion of a foreign writer.
The name factors is a poor deduction by H.A.Rose and must be considered as a theory, he certainly had no further proof beyond that. Many Muslim Darbars adopted localised Hindu traditions of tying strings on wall ways, does this make them Hindu in ancestry. Nope. Khwaja Gharib Nawaz of Ajmer Shareef (pure Persian/Arab and a celebrated Syed, organised Bhajans and which were later modified into Qawalis) did this practice change his origins? Nope!! Migratory changes in culture are expected and a positive progression to integration. This argument in the 21st century is absolutely deplorable and ludicrous....--Raja (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parwinder Awana

An emerging cricket star in India is Parwinder Awana
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parwinder Awana - reply

See link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gujjar_Clans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.230.8 (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, nice reply :-)
In case further evidence is required that Awana's are a Gujar clan, then this [1] should suffice, as well as [2] and also the book "History, Caste & Culture of Jāts and Gūjars"(by A. H. Bingley, Krishna Prakash Bahadur, Ess Ess Publ. 1978, p120) which cites and confirms this. Why cant Indian wikipedians stop trying to Hinduise non Hindu clans?! Talk about insecurity syndrome dude.....--Raja (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Raja, thanks for the input, unfortunately ‘intothefire’ is making a simple mistake of associating other tribes of similar sounding to the Awan tribe….if we were (for arguments sake only) to accept intothefire’s claim….then these people (see links below) should also be related to the Awans.

• http://www.abc.net.au/tv/btn/stories/s1574329.htm

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2499479.stm (see 2nd last paragraph)

• http://picasaweb.google.com/DebbieShew/GlobalMissionEvent2007/photo#5118797379280328098

• http://www.gd.no/kultur/article2721323.ece?service=print

Most of these people are from southern Sudan...you also have people with names similar to Awan in East Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.190.3 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.190.3 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Qutb Shah

Can someone write more details about Qutb Shah? I am surprised that there is no article about this man! Where was he born, when was he born, where did he travel, where did he settle, who did he marry, who were the kings at that time, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.91.224 (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Qutb Shah - reply

Hi, I found the following extract from Punjab revenue website about an ancient village of Sunet located near Ludhiana, I'll add the link as well, briefly mentions Qutb Shah.

"Another legend has it: Sirkap , the ruler of Sunnet was in the habit of eating one goat a day. The supply of the goats having failed, his cook served up the flesh of a young child. The Raja noticed the difference and the cook explained the difficulty. Sirkap was satisfied and ordered the cook to serve up a young child daily. When it was the turn of the child of a Brahman widow the mother rushed to Mirhoto (Ludhiana) and implored the great Saint Kutb Shah to save her child. The Saint obliged by killing the cruel king. The name of the Muslim Saint suggested the existence of Awans, who were actually found at Ludhiana . the story might have been connected with Sirkap by the Awan colonists of Ludhiana on their migration from Awan- kari district situated between Jhelhm and Indus."

http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/gaz_ldh39.htm

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.229.240 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awans are Chandarbansi Rajput

Awan like the Janjua and Khokhar are Chandarbansi .

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gazetteer of the Attock District 1930 Sang e Meel Publications Lahore Pakistan page 83
  2. ^ A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North -West Frontier Province -A H Rose Volume 111 page 275
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Awan_(tribe)&oldid=184502918"