Talk:Sikandar Hayat Khan

Removed Wrong Information
I have removed some wrong information which was added by someone today. The lady mentioned was not Sir Sikandar's daughter but Sir Liaquat Hayat Khan's, i.e. his elder brother. Khani100 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Khani100

Hello, have removed some information added recently which was factually wrong i.e listing a lady as Sir Sikandar's daughter whereas she was his niece. Have already given notice of this above, and am giving it again please, for a reminder. Thank you. Khani100 (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Khani100

Salam. W ref to above notes by an editor, someone again has given a wrong name of Sir Sikandar's eldest daughter. Sir Sikandar, to best of my knowledge, had 5 daughters, eldest being Begum Mahmooda Salim Khan, died recently in 2007 or 2008, she was formerly West Pakistan minister in Gen Ayub's regime. Among her younger sisters is also Begum Tahira Mazhar Ali, mother of Tariq Ali the UK writer and lecturer. There is no daughter of his by the name 'Bilquis Sheikh'. It is strange that people keep on changing this information without any basic historical knowledge. This should be stopped and discouraged please. Asad U Khwaja, retd profesor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.54.195.197 (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Editors Please note, that this article has been victim it seems to serious vandalism, with many highly objectionable statements and outright abuse. I am making a report and fixing the problem by removingf the said scurrilous material. Thank you 39.54.46.215 (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja

Dear Editors/Wikipedia, reg the above, please is there any way we can request that this article which was recently rather seriously vandalised, be placed on some sort of General Editorial Watchlist, or Protected from any vandalism via some mechanism? Would request guidance thank you. AsadUK200 (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Notice and Warning


Dear Sir, Sh Iftikhar sahib, many salams. Thank you for your notice here! Let me please assure you, that here on Wikipedia, we take general vandalism v seriously and examples of defamatory comments and libel, even more seriously. Wikipedia has an ongoing system of checking/patrolling such acts and taking action of various types, firm action, to discourage such activity. However, I hope you will also please try to appreciate and understand our limitations. Wikipdia is run by the non-profit charitable Wikimedia Foundation and its a free/open encyclopedia project, whereby readers and editors/users from all over the world participate in contributing to articles--by and large most contributions are v good and constructive, though sometimes, some disruptive acts (as in this instance) unfortunately do occure. But we just cannot discourage all people from helping with an article, including this one. But please do rest assured, some of us will now keep an eye on this by putting the article on a 'watchlist' and try tio stave off a repeat of this shameful and rather low act. Yours most sincerely, Editor/User Khani100 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100 (also from Pakistan)

Once again, there seems to be a baltant example of vandalism of this page by User:76.17.7.56, shall clean up. And report the matter as per rules. Khani100 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

With reference to the comments by the above people, supposedly some grandsons or relatives of late Sir Sikandar Hyat, in response to a lawyer, whom I have already answered on 9th April, regarding a vandalism case that has already been reported. The following points are brought to notice again:

1. I think these gentlemen seem to be labouring under some misapprehension. Im one of the people, who purely from an academic standpoint, have been making edits and maintaining this page. I know, s Im sure do the other editors of this page that Sir Sikandar had 5 sons.

2. As per Wikipedia standards, we have only mentioned/added (a) those children of Sir Sikandar who are verifiably notable (b) those grandchildren of the same who are also verifiably notable and (c) one great-grandson of the same who is verifiably notable by Wiki standards.

3. If any of these above gentlemen are also similarly able to provide me or any of the other editors here ample proof of notability with verifiable sources, we'd be happy to add them too. This is NOT a family geneaological listing, please, let me repeat this, nor is there any favour or bias involved, its a proper process for the development of a Wikipedia article, along certain well directed, well-specified goals and objectives.

I think that the above hon'ble gentlemen have not taken the trouble to read or consult the Wikipedia guidelines that were probably left on the IP address used at various times previously to (a) vandalise this page with unacceptable talk/comments and (b) to repeatedly ignore reasonable please and warnings and advice. If this goes on, then Im very sorry that as a bona fide editor, I at least shall not tolerate such stuff from anyone, no matter who. Khani100 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

For the record, and for a minute forgetting this whole 'family feud' that seems unfortunately to be going on here, publicly, I would also like to please reiterate that no one OWNS Wikipedia articles and it is rather sad and unjustified that instead of helping move along this article rationally and in cooperation with people, as part of the larger community on this site, this one user/IP address is trying to entirely appropriate the whole article and impose 'sanctions' to ensure that only his/her view/s are accepted, blindly. Im sorry, but I find this utterly deplorable.Khani100 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Removed further vandalism by User 76.17.7.56
I have now removed latest vandalism by the above user on this page, and I would request that some admin please take notice of this, since this person/s is/are making only vandalistic attacks on some few pages, primarily this one, and this needs to be looked into. Previously, User:AsadUK200 has also been doing repeated clean up after such attacks and its a real waste of time, doing so repeatedly.Thanks Khani100 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Removing this article from my watch list
Reg my comments and notes above, and to all the article's history, as well as my frequent requests for help/guidance etc, and so on; I feel that there is little or no scope for editors who want to work seriously on some articles such as this, which tend to be controversial and which result in ill feeling and demotivation and where one is subjected to stress and bullying. Im sorry to say that Wikipedia does not seem to have a proper, effective rapid-response to the concerns engendered by such problems/issues, and Id rather not have bear all the headaches etc. Thus, Im removing this article from my watchlist, and good luck to anyone who wants to do a decent job with it. Regards, Khani100 (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Indeed, Im sorry about this, But it seems, dear User:Khani100, that Wikipedia has removed the legal threats and pressures, and probably blocked the user/s who were using these. I would request you earnestly to return to this task, of helping improve and develop this article, we need to have your expertise and help. I would be personally thankful, my own editorial knowledge is still woefully inadequate and need help. Many thanks, Yours sincerely, AsadUK200 (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Re a recent deletion or hiding of some revision?
Hello, I am also editing this article and I am a new editor and not familiar with various terminologies etc. From my watchlist I note that on this article, some 'recent revision' was 'hidden' by a User:Spinningspark however I cannot seem to find exact details of the log for this or any valid reason and so that is a bit confusing for me. Did I make some error or fault? Or add something that is against Wikipedia policy? The situation is not clear and I would like please to know and understand exactly what is the problem and what is the right course of action thereupon. Could some detailed explanation be please given ? Thank you very much, AsadUK200 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200
 * I have replied to you on my talk page.  Spinning Spark  09:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Section deletions
Hello. It seems that someone, a User:74.82.68.144, has deleted an entire section from this article; and also a part of the last (now) section. I dont know what to say about that--maybe the last section is best removed, as it seemed to be controversial? But I dont fathom why the last lines of the previous section were also deleted? From the history i see that User:Spinningspark reverted a previous deletion too? What to do? I am sorry but I dont fully comprehend the procedures in these matters. RegsAsadUK200 (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Hello. I stand corrected. Only the last controversial section removed/deleted. I dont know if there's a need for a discussion on this but I personally deem it alright that this has neen removed, although I do wish that some reason/rationale had been given.AsadUK200 (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Dear Wikipedia Editors/Users, Kindly refer to my talk above and that before it, and by other users here. A number of editors have worked on and contributed to this article in the past and I am one of these. However, following a series of threats and vandalism attacks and unexplained and unjustified removal of big chunks of content, most probably a chain of linked people who are, or purport to be, 'family members' of the person on whom this article is written, a situation has arisen whereby no one is really willing to work on this article anymore; and I shall also not work on it under present circumstances. Again, I would like to stress that it is very sad indeed that despite proclaimed Wikipedia manifestos articles like this one end up becoming 'controversial' due to some personal interests of some people which create a COI and these editors/people end up asserting a claim and 'ownership' of such articles and serious scholars and academics are driven away. It is truly insupportable and I condemn this strongly. I think I shall also leave this article to its fate. I hope that the Wikipedia admins and senior personnel see the objectivity of this whole self-defeating excercise that actually results in the destrcution of a good article. Thank youAsadUK200 (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Dear Wikipedia, I'm not well acquainted with Wikipedia hence this is the only way I can bring to your attention. I'd like to point that the late Premier spelled his name as "Sikander Hyat-Khan," (with an 'e' and a hyphenated last name wherein the 'Hyat' is always spelled with one 't' to avoid misunderstanding with the Jewish spelling 'Hyatt.' This can be verified by reviewing his correspondence collection located at both Pakistan Archives in Islamabad and Punjab Archives in Lahore). This is true of the case with his late father who always spelled his name as "Mohammed Hyat-Khan." With two 'm's' and an 'e.' Therefore, the family name is "Hyat-Khan." Note, not 'sometimes written as "Hyat-Khan" as the article states, but ALWAYS written as "Hyat-Khan," and sometimes, mispelled as "Sikandar Hayat Khan" or "Sikandar Hayat-Khan" or "Hyatt Khan," or "Mohamed Hayat Kha" or "Muhammad Hyat Khan" or "Mohammad Hyat Khan."

Second, the article casually makes mention that the late Premier was buried at the Badshahi Mosque (implying solely in the absence of the below) because of his contribution to restoring. Sir Sikander's contributions to the freedom of India from British rule, his statesmanship displayed during World War II and the creation of Pakistan go unnoticed. He was buried at the footsteps of the Badhshahi Mosque, to name a few reasons, because: 1. He was the first elected Premier (a Mussalman) of (undivided) Punjab. 2. Loved by all alike, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. 3. He was considered the foremost leader of the Muslims in the Punjab. 4. He drafted the Lahore Resolution (which later became known as the Pakistan Resolution). 5. He became the de-facto driving force behind the strength of the Muslim League due to his decision to sign the "Sikander-Jinnah Pact" in Lucknow, which markedly altered the future of The Muslim League. 6. And, his contribution to the restoration of the Badhshahi Mosque that had been turned into a stable by the Sikhs. Being present at the funerary ceremonies in Lahore on that sad horrible day, for India and the Punjab, I vividly recall the overall grief among both his supporters and his opponents. We all came together and walked alongside his sons, brothers, relatives, friends and the Muslims of Lahore to the Badshahi Mosque. Again, please pardon my ignorance about Wikipedia's rules and forgive my posting a comment here. Regards, Prof. Dr. Ghulam Nayyar (ghulam.nayyar@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.78.150 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With ref to the discussion above, I have today fixed all the spellings that someone had systematically changed from the standardised Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, here, to Sikander Hyat Khan, and Sikandar Hyat-Khan. There is no point in wasting time in this and its good to please maintain the spelling prevailing and already standardised. If you wish, even in good faith to give Alternative Name Spellings, PLEASE, its my humble request, DONT spoil the article, add to the Person Data section thanks. 39.54.114.15 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Hilda Khan, Pakistan

Several changes
Hello, I made a couple of changes i.e (1) removing a long list of children of Sir Sikandar, only leaving those who are noteworthy for some achievements and have Wikipedia pages of their own. and (2) corrected the spelling of the family name to 'Hayat Khan'. It is a simple rule of English that a name is only hyphenated when a person or individual take two separate family names and combines them. For example, If Mr John Smith's mother was from the Terrence family, he could thus if so wished, also add her name to his paternal one as John Terrence-Smith etc. In the case of the Hayat family of Wah, Pakistan, the name springs from their ancestor Nawab Muhammad Hayat Khan whose name was 'Muhammad Hayat' and whose surname was actually 'Khan'. Later, his sons took on the name of 'Hayat Khan' as their surname but there is no hyphenation. The hyphenation issue developed during the late 1930s when some media writer from the local Indian press in Punjab mis-spelt the name and no correction was forthcoming. Later on, in April 1940, Mr Edgar M. Henry a prominent Christian scholar and English professor of Lahore pointed this out in a letter to the Civil and Military Gazette -- he happened to be my grandfather. When I was later teaching at a Women's college in Lahore, I also had the honour of discussing this topic with both Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan and he very clearly told me that there was No Hyphenation in the Hayat Khan name. I hope that these changes will be ok, thanks 39.54.47.254 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Prof (retd) Hilda Khan

I have today removed a whole para in the end of this article dedicated to Sir Sikandar's brother Liaqat Hayat Khan-- i think this should rightly be given on his page not here. Thanks 39.54.166.197 (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Prof (r) Hilda Khan


 * I am adding some of Sir Sikandar's notable descendants whom someone has removed, for no apparent reason. Thanks39.54.163.96 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Prof (retd) Hilda Khan

Made a small change.
He did not belong to a "jatt khattar" tribe. Khattars are not jatt, and the word was merely an addition by some user without any citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.32.94 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the list of names of Sir Sikandar's children as that did not seem necessary here in the light of previous/foregoing discussions on this topic, over quite some time. Also, i have re-added the 'Jatt' term as the origins of the Khattars are subject to much controversy and they are in fact generally classified as Jatt Khattars in most land revenue and census records in both India and Pakistan, and is still in use in many cases post-1947, in official records. I hope that this will not start a new edit war as before, as one can note above please. Thanks 39.54.138.91 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Prof (r) Hilda Khan, Pakistan

Since their origins are subject to controversy, it means that they are "jatt". Strong logic. And you're absolutely wrong. Most gazetteers and British era literature refer to Khattars as either a sub-tribe of Awans claiming descent from Qutub Shah, or as a converted rajput tribe. Jatts are a very rare breed in Attock, so it makes no sense for a local tribe to be labelled "Jatt". Here's a reference: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=1QmrSwFYe60C&pg=PA532&lpg=PA532&dq=khattars+gazetteer&source=bl&ots=qMX171e974&sig=ANlShNZEeTl1e1eS9m0phw0lonA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RUZDVffMD8PqoATl1oGABA&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=khattars%20gazetteer&f=false

And also refer to Rawalpindi Gazetteer for their origin. If there were some "Khattar Jatts" in Indian Punjab doesn't mean they are related with the ones from Attock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.147.70 (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources referred to above by these contributors are not reliable or acceptable ones. Besides, there was no factual, historical 'Qutub Shah' and the origins and background of the Awans is in itself a matter of dispute. Most recent research and DNA testing seems to place the Awans as 92% within the Indo-European family, closely allied by blood /genetics to the Rajputs and Jatts39.54.29.155 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan

^I have some major disagreements with the points you mentioned above. First of all, you did not offer any citations to back up your information about Qutub Shah and the genetics of the Awans etc. Secondly, there's barely any "close alliance" between the Jatts and Rajputs in terms of descent. In fact, both castes are quite distinct from each other. For instance in some regions of the Sub-continent, a high concentration of Rajputs are found yet Jatts are very rare. Case in point, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu. Jatts are said to have their origins in Sindh, the Rajputs have their origins in a lot of different places. Again, the term "Khattar Jatt" is incorrect in the context of Khattars of Attock, for they do not claim a jatt origin. Their "jatt" origin is mere speculation put forward by some users, probably due to a hidden agenda.


 * Re your comments above, there are 2 major recent genetic studies of mithochondrial DNA that you need to study -- (a) Malik, A.A., Riza, SM and Yaqub, M 'Racial origin claims of select tribes of Rawalpindi and Attock district, North Punjab' (2011) , in The Genome international journal, Carolina, USA, Vol 72, pp 101-112. and (b) Majumdar , K and Brar, VS , study of the consanguinity of Jatts and Rajputs in Punjab and Haryana, pub in India, 2014. In the first document, a detailed DNA study has been made of several tribes of North Punjab (in Pakistan) and and specially the Awans, who are confirmed to be of certain indigenous South Asian origins. Further, the researchers cite some other historical sources, to show that there never was any 'Qutub Shah' ancestor of Awans or anyone else, as no such person ever existed in Central Asia or Afghanistan. Further, they also cite Prof Ahmad Hasan Dani, a notable Pakistani scholar , who claimed that Awans were in fact the ancient 'Awanii' or 'Abanii' mentioned by Greek and Roman ancient writers. In the second work, published in India, there seems to be a strong confirmation of close blood relations between Rajputs and Jatts; indeed , in some areas of Pakistan and India, some tribes are classified as Rajput and/or Jatt/s, interchangeably. Many people in Pakistan today 'claim' a separate origin and have now manufactured fake histories and pedigrees to 'prove' their new so called origins. That does not mean anything . facts are important and facts show that the Khattars, for example, were variously categorized as either Rajputs or Jatts until the early 20th c , indeed well into the 1920s. Only later did some Khattars start to claim 'Arabic' origins . In the same way, if we look at the early pedigrees of the Awans (I am also an Awan by the way) until 1918-1919 we see many Hindu names and origins, which were later 'brushed out' by some of our senior Awans (with some political ambitions) and a whole crock of fake history manufactured , to justify this. Similar facts are also there about other tribes eg Ghebas in Attock (also Rajputs who claim to be Mughals now), Dhonds (so called 'Abbasis' now, originally indigenous hill tribes) of Murree and galiyat hills, Karlals of Abbottabad and Havelian regions of KPK (also Jatts) and so on. I think that we need to seek out and accept verified facts and not just speculate on the basis of vague self-promoting 'histories' manufactured by some people. Thanks. 39.54.196.91 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan


 * Hi, I think that we can reasonably rely on an old genealogy of Khattars main family.

The senior branch of the Khattar tribe (which has both Hindus and Muslims) settled in Wah, Attock area of Punjab, Pakistan, is the Hayat Wah family, and they are neither Jat nor Awan/so-called fake Arabs, nor Turks etc-- they have maintained accurate historical pedigree in the past which was recorded by Col CH Hall in 1866 probably at Wah village, seat of late Nawab Muhammad Hyat Khan Khattar, which clearly shows they are of Rajput (Chohan) descent. Hence, they should be classified properly as 'Muslim Rajputs'. I am reproducing this original pedigree below, please, for accuracy and for the record:

STARTS HERE Original Pedigree and Genealogy of the Hayat, Khattar Family of Wah, as per the Account Given to Col. CH Hall, by Mullah Sarwar, Genealogist to Sardar (later Nawab) Muhammad Hayat Khan, 1866 and duly recorded at the Residence of the Sardar, in his company, in October of that year.

1. Chauhan (or Chohan) Agnivanshi Rajput, Remote Progenitor –probably of Hun/Central Asian ancestry who came via Kashmir and settled with his clan/tribe in various parts of the areas that were later Punjab, UP and Rajputana. (Several generations) 2. Rai Shiv Dayal Chauhan (came from Kashmir or upper/hills of Punjab and settled at Bagh Nilab, near Indus River, c. 1750 AD) (Several generations) 3. Rai Kishan Dayal 4. Rai Har Dayal 5. Rai Ram Dayal 6. Had two (2) sons, Rai Sukh Dayal (supposedly remote ancestor of Tiwanas, Noons etc) and Rai or Raja Jai Dayal (direct line) 7. Raja Jiwan (son of Raja Jai Dayal) 8. Raja Mahinder 9. Raja Gajinder 10. Raja Rajinder 11. Raja Harnarain 12. Raja Badrinath 13. Had two (2) sons, Raja Dayanand who via his descendant Raja/Rai Alyas, was progenitor of the Ghebas, Jodhras etc; and Raja Raghunand (direct line) 14. Raja Kaidarnath (alias ‘Kaidu Raja’ or ‘Khattar Raja’) son of Raja Raghunand, converted to Islam around 11th-12th AD, and received title of ‘KHATTAR KHAN’. All Khattars today, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, descended from him, in Pakistan and India and elsewhere. 15. Khattar Raja/Khattar Khan had 6 sons, and they divided into two (2) groups (a) KALA SECTION (led by Kalay Khan) and (b) CHITTA SECTION or ‘FEROZAL’ SECTION (led by Feroz Khan) 16. From Chitta/Ferozal Section over the next many generations, with frequent inter-marriages and inter-relations with various Afghan, Persian and Turki (Turkish/Central Asian) settlers, was RAJA SARBULAND KHAN, who received also the title of ‘Sardar’ and was also known as ‘Sardar Sarbuland Khan’. (From line of Sarbuland Khan) 17. Said Ahmad Khan 18. Ghazan Khan 19. Jamal Khan (founded village of ‘Jalalsar’ after his son, now ‘Wah’) 20. Jalal Khan (lived under the reign of the Mughal Emperor Jahangir) 21. Had two sons, Inayat Khan and Habeeb Khan; and from Habeeb Khan are: 22. Kamil Khan and Ghazi Khan; and from Kamil Khan: 23. Shah Wali Khan (also known as ‘Shah Wali Mansabdar’ as he was in Mughal service and enjoyed ‘Mansab’ or rank of Haft-Hazari, commander over 7000); and from him: (3-4 generations) 24. Several sons, (a) Sardar Karam Khan (b) Hassan Khan (c) Fatteh Khan (d) Kaim Khan and (e) Noor Khan. Sardar Karam Khan was murdered by his half-brother, Fatteh Khan; and he too was later murdered by Fatteh Khan, Khattar of Dharek. The sons of late Sardar Karam Khan are as follows; 25. (a) Gulab Khan (b) Bahadur Khan (c) SARDAR MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN, ASST. COMMISSIONER (THE MAIN SUBJECT OF THIS PEDIGREE) born: 1833/34; (d) Ghulam Khan’ and (e) Sikandar Khan. Ends Here Subsequent Pedigree from Sardar (later Nawab) Muhammad Hayat Khan, CSI, of Wah (until 1947-48) 26. Nawab Muhammad Hayat Khan (1833/34-1901) had many children from various wives and concubines, and from his Senior Wife, Begum Zainab Khanam, daughter of Ghulam Jilani, Ansari, employee and minister of Kapurthala State, he had the following sons: (a) Nawabzada Muhammad Aslam Hayat Khan (died 1924); (b) Sardar Mahmood Hayat Khan (died 1910) (c) Khan-Bahadur (later Nawab-Bahadur) Sir Liaquat Hayat Khan, ex-Prime Minister of Patiala State, British Punjab (1887-1948) (d) Sardar Ghairat Hayat Khan (died 1911); and (e) CAPT ® SARDAR SIR SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, KBE, KCSI etc, former Premier of the Punjab (1892-1942)—the noblest and most distinguished of the sons of his notable father and the most brilliant of the scions of Khattar race, the true pride of all Punjabis, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh.

(shared thanks to post by Prof Dr Vimal Verma) Tenty1000 (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Tenty1000

A seemingly deliberate wrong entry
A User:98.255.18.239 seems to have made a deliberately wrong entry, by adding the name of former Pakistani general Akhtar Abdur Rahman amongst the children /offspring of Sir Sikandar here. This is so obviously untrue that one is in doubt as to the motives of this contributor. I have removed this and I hope it shant be repeated. 39.54.29.155 (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan

Removal of referenced material and replacement with dubious/unreferenced material
Hullo- seems someone has recently removed referenced material from this article and replaced it with unreliable, or unreferenced material. I have fixed this and request that properly sourced material shouldnt be removed, and also that only names of those notable people should be added who already have existing Wikipedia articles/entries. Many thanksAsadUK200 (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)AsadUK200

Date of birth
I would please like to clarify that Sir Sikandar was definitely born in 1892 and NOT 1882. His son, late Shaukat Hyat Confirms this in his book (1993) and the same date is given in Iftikhar H Malik (1984) and Stanley Wolpert's book on Jinnah which also mentions Sir Sikandar (1991-92). I have fixed/amended this again to 1892 and I would please request that this may not be tampered with, as it is the correct/factual date of birth. Thanks. 39.54.196.91 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan

On Pakistan
TrangaBellam (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)