Talk:Sudhan

Sudhun Gali image
Could someone explain why this image of a house is relevant to this article about the Sudhun tribe. In the meantime, I have moved the image so that the text of the lead section is not squashed between two images (see MOS:IMAGES for the guideline mentioning this). Astronaut (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes in lead section
When including quotes, it is useful to separate them from the flow of the text so they can be more easily read and identified as a quote. However, I think it is preferable to write your own words and cite the source text as a reference. Astronaut (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Pakistan and Sensationalism of this article
"""Literacy rate in Azad Kashmir soars to 78 percent, leaving the rest of Pakistan behind [16]. The Sudhun tribe in particularly is well educated composing of high literacy rates both among its female and male members."""

I only came across this by accident, but I'm glad I did, the Wikipedia editors have been notified about the false information and hate that has been written in this article. Allow me to explain.

There are several districts within Pakistan which have above 90% literacy rates just thought I would point that out. And doesn't this just sum up just how ridiuclous this article is? Secondly, define "literacy", according to the UN. Third, what does Azad Kashmir have to do with Sudhuns?
 * Literacy Rate

How can the geographical distribution of this family be determined when an official number is not even mentioned? New York, California? They didn't get there because Obama invited them, try and explain why and how they are in America. It has something to do along the lines of IMMIGRATION and MAKING ENDS MEET!
 * Geographical Distribution

The history seems sketchy, who wrote this article I want to talk to you or at least by e-mail because I've heard something else. This just seems like wishful thinking.
 * False Information

The overall article is just so fabricated and patethically written, as if they were trying to sell the family. Please learn to write Wikipedia articles in accordance to the rules, primarily by not fabricating information and claiming things which have not happened in the past. We're just embarassing ourselves!

Jawad Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by MirNaveed (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Theories of origins
Origin of Sudhan,s are controversial because there is no clear evidence of their origin whether they are converted to Islam or they belong to a pathan tribe Sadozai. There is no Authentication book who talked about the sudhan,s origin.

But how sudhan,s tolds about their self's that that are belong to Pathans(Sadozai) seems misinformation because it Erises several questions

1) Sudhans in Azad Kashmir Exceeds 8 lakhs population .Research about Sudozai tribe in Afghanistan shows that that have not much population. They are near about 3 lakhs So how it is possible that that tribe which you originally belong to is less then from its branch tribe?

2) one evidence about their conversion from Non Muslim to Muslim is that in Jammu and Kashmir Sudhan Sikhs and Sudhan Hindus are leaving so its impossible that if they are originally Muslims(Pathans) so how Muslim Sudhans are converted to Sikhs or Hindus.

3) Sudhans tells that they migrated from Afghanistan from 2 or 3 centuries ago But other pathans tribes also migrated to kashmir in that time like Afradi,Yusafzai etc.But they still speak Pushto and have pushton culture but when we search about Sudhans we never found a single man who can speak pushto even from their 2 or 3 generation elders.Their culture is totally diffrent from pathans So how its possibe that a tribe is totally diverted from its original culture in 2 or 3 centuries. 4) Sudhans stated that thay are decedent from Sodu khan but how its possible that population from 1 men reaches up to 10 lakhs in just 2 centuries

5) pathans have tradition that they love their home land and they visited their home land and they have kinship's there even they migrated to USA from last 5 centuries but we do not find this characteristics in Sudhans they have not any kinship there and not even any Sudhan visited Afghanistan

So it is important to find the answer of these Question thus we can reach to Sudhan,s origin and also A research project comprising DNA lineage study has been commenced to determine the ancestry of the Sudhans.

Brahmin ancestry: According to Col. (Rtd) Dr. Khalil Khan now deceased, a Dermatologist from Rawalakot, Azad Kashmir. "Sudhans were converted to Islam by Aurangzeb Bahadur Alamgir the sixth Mughal ruler".[4]

“ By origin the Mohyals are certainly Saraswat and still take wives from that group in Gujarat, while in Rawalpindi the five superior sections (Sudhan, Sikhan, Bhaklal, Bhog and Kali) of the Bunjahi Sarsuts used to give daughters Bhimwal(Bhibhal) Mohyal Sarsuts and occasionally to other Mohyal sections.[5] ”

The name Sudhan also occurs in the Mahabharata mythology, as a descendant of the vedic rishi Angiras, this is also further corroborated by the reference above, although there is no reference of the tribe itself claiming descent from the mentioned Angiras's son Sudhan. Also in the Gazetteer of Rawalpindi, there appears no mention of the Sudhan's Mohyal or Brahmin connection. There are Hindu Sudhans, mostly living in India-controlled Kashmir, and Sikh Sudhans in Indian Punjab and Kashmir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.84.190 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) This section is far away from reality, sudhans historically are decendents of Sudozai who centuries ago migrated from Afghanistan and settled in poonch district of Azad Kashmir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riztech (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources to support your statement? My gut feeling is that this article is somewhat lacking in many aspects but I keep getting waylaid dealing with stuff elsewhere. If you can provide some decent sources, in accordance with the preceding policy to which I have linked, then perhaps we can try to make a start on improving matters. On the other hand, if it is just something that you know then we cannot use it here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, they are not Pashtun at all and they don't retain the Pashto language at all unlike other Pashtuns living Kashmir. Not only that, but the word Sudhan is not even Pashto, its Bengali and also found in Hindi which means rich or wealthy. It seems claiming Afghan ancestry in India is a total trend nowadays despite many people claiming to be so have no actual conections to Pashtuns. Akmal94 (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sudhans are not descents of Sado Khan, Sudhan use Sudhuzai which means Son of Sudhan and Sudhans descents of Nawab Jassi Khan who was Pathan and migrated from Afghanistan  to Poonch with his Battalion  and family members 13th century/ 700 years ago or so more,they first settled near Kotli, in the Murree hills. A tribe known as the Bagar held the opposite bank of the Jhelum and tyrannised over the Brahmans, who called in the Sudhans to their aid. The Sudhans having defeated the Bagars, seized their country and named it Sudhanoti, it was at this time that they took the name of Sudhan, which they had earned as a compliment to their valour from the Brahmans. All qualities of Pashtuns can be found in Sudhans, Sudhans are Pathans! The Sudhans are very sensitive clan. They will not tolerate deliberate insult. If insulted, they can fight back to establish their dignity. They can quarrel with each other over small matters, for example land, for years. They never commit rape, but a Sudhan would like a good looking girl to run away with him. Such a thing can start perpetual feud between families for years. This brings us to the last great war and Sudhans history. This war gave Sudhans a great chance to fight on all fronts of the war. They fought in North Africa and Europe all over. Against the Japanese, they fought ' in Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia and other fronts. After Sudhans came back from war fronts, Indo-Pakistan continent was witnessing a unique political struggle and was on the verge of independence. This struggle for independence affected every big or small town. A new age was emerging with a brilliance never witnessed for ages before. Sudhans were thus affected by the magnificent struggle for freedom. Dogra rule seemed miserably crumbling along with the British Raj, where the sun never set for two hundred years or so. Filled with a spirit of new urge to be free, the Sudhans, like all Kashmiri patriots, were. ready to do their part in freedom struggle. In fact they were the first to challenge the Maharaja and his armies all over the state. All other tribes big and small joined them later. Sudhan is a tribe of professional soldiers. They are a brave and self respecting people. They can be easily made to resort to Arms for a cause. They, some time, differ with one another, in ordinary life, but just as much easily and quickly get together in times of crises. In social life they follow time old customs and traditions, which may not be easily acceptable to a modern man but these traditions have a good basis and a good background. 8 They came from Afghanistan via Dora Ismail Khan, in NWFP Pakistan, and are the same as Pathans of Afghanistan. Astore Malik (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No they aren't Afghans or Pashtuns nor descendants of anyone who migrated from Afghanistan. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Many Sudans are brahmins and claim to belong to the Shandliya gotra. The majority of Sudans which claim to be of pashtun descent are muslim Sudans who are following the recent trend of muslims in the Indian subcontinent to relate themselves with, what are to be considered "muslim" tribes like arabs and pashtuns. This is a serious case of inferiority complex among the muslim population in the indian subcontinent.

Sudhan are Pashtun PakhtoonGroup (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Overciting
Why does "There are Hindu Sudhans, mostly living in India-controlled Kashmir, and Sikh Sudhans in Indian Punjab and Kashmir." require 10 sources? I cannot see any of them online, although some probably do exist on the web but are poorly formatted in our article. - Sitush (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Hindu Sudhans do officially not exist, the Sikh and Hindu people in Indian controlled Kashmir who are calling them Sudhans are Hindu Pundits from Poonch and Sudhanoti, who migrated in 1947 to Indian Kashmir and they toke this name of Sudhan, this may because they belong to Sudhan domnatied areas like Sudhnoti and Poonch, All sources said Sudhan claim Pathan orgin, there is no source in which says existion Hindu or Sikh Sudhans. Astore Malik (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Livinb Persons
Who put this living person thing, Sudhan is a clan or caste not a person

EagleEye 23:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that a significant number of Sudhans identify themselfs being of Afghan origin, particularly from Sadozai tribe, then the origin section should respore that source in the article. The origin of Sudhans is disputed and the main architect of the removal of the Afghan source seems to be the contributor Sitush who is suddenly ever present on this page. Please restore the original sections in the article otherwise it will be re-written to reflect the diversity of opinions. Moarrikh (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sudans are not Afghans

Sudhans are not and have never been Pushtuns. Just because there is a tribe called Sadozia does not mean that the Sudhans are also Sadozai. This is utter nonsense. The view that Sudhans are Sadozai origianted from some people in Rawalakot who stated that the Sadozai Abdalis attacked Kashmir in 1700s and that they are his children. This is totally wrong and bogus. The reason is that if you go to Palandari and rawalakot which are sudhan areas if they were afghans were are the original inhabitants. Some body must have lived there 280 year ago. Secondly if they are Afghans and they killed or drove out the original inhabistants why do they speak Pahari language why not pushtu. Please note that a few thousand afridis have been living in Kashmir for 300 years and they still call them selves afridi and speak pusttu. Why did 600,000 people all of a sudden stop speaking pushtu. Why did they stop calling themseleves sadozai. Why did 100,000 of them convert to hindusim and sikhism.

Sudan are not Afghans and it is essentail that they do develop some strength of charachter and stop trying to attah themselves to Afghans and also arabs. Some have claimed to be arabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jat punyal (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And your reliable sources for this are what? Does it even relate to improvement of the article which, after all, is the sole purpose of this page? - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree most sudhans are converts from hindoos.

Trueblood (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of their origins counts for nothing here, sorry. Our articles must be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake
I had a brain fart when reverting some content concerning the 2005 earthquake, calling the place Rawalpindi when I meant Rawalkhot. Regardless, I am still unhappy with the content. This is not a reliable source and we need a page number for this. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This report is from the Government of Pakistan for the United Nations for earthquake relief, so it is very reliable.

75.14.219.205 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the report was unreliable - I asked for a page number. The website is unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir
As with the earthquake stuff, much of the detail concerning Azad Kashmir etc appears to border on coatracking - taking the Sudhan connection to an extreme in order to finagle a mention of something that really is not relevant to the article. Statements such as "although Kashmir state acceded to India, they were able to 'liberate' a portion called Azad Kashmir (Free/Pakistani controlled)." are particularly troublesome because of the weasel wording and punctuation. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a fact, people in AJK fought and are not under Indian rule, that is exactly the reason for the UN to have observers, I dont know who wrote the section, but it can be corrected to state that the Raja of Jammu and Kashmir signed the assection agreement, which was not accepted by inhabitants of the areas under control of Pakistan. However the fact is that Sudhans were not treated very well by the Raja 75.14.219.205 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Says who? - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * People in Rawalakot and inhabitants of AJK all revolted against the Raja it is a known fact. Maybe you should look into reading a few books by people in AJK.  I have read the books and I have visited AJK and have talked to the people and have the book by Sardar Ibrahim the leader of the Sudhans in AJK and the First President of AJK apparently he says so, and so does General Aziz who is a sudhan and was Chief of Pak Army Staff.  Maybe they are all brainwashed but this is the fact.  There is a place in AJK called Taralkhel, it is named so because the Raja's army skined sudhans alive for refusing to pay taxes. Trueblood (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments are just that, comments. Please read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not my comments, I am not sure why you take this so personally. What I will do is get the cititations from the various books and you can verify them.  There is nothing personal in this, maybe the Indian viewpoint is different, but if so than you should put that here, otherwise the verified claims from Sudhans in Sudnuti and Poonch and Rawalakot must be accepted, as you know there are always two sides to an issue, and that is probably the case here, all I am saying is that people in Azad Jammu and Kashmir have their own viewpoint, otherwise they would not have formed there own government.  You must read the book by Sardar Ibrahim Khan, the first President of AJK, in fact every year the President of AJK comes to the UN General Assembly Trueblood (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Until you provide the sources they remain just your comments. I have just realised from your latest message that they may reflect some sort of potential nationalist agenda. I have no connection to South Asia at all but you need to be aware that articles such as this are subject to sanctions, in part because of past POV-pushing by contributors with nationalist agendas. It is best to tread lightly because of this: as elsewhere in life, people's interpretations of the policy vary and some will issue blocks etc without much provocation. Aside from WP:RS (which you now say you will address), it seems likely that you'll need to understand the issues surrounding WP:DUE. Hope this helps. PS: please can you not add your signature on a separate line. It makes things difficult to follow and you should just add it at the end of your message. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC).
 * You'll note,, that I have re-indented this in agreement with convention. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing
I've just reverted Trueblood's restoration of poor content. Despite an edit summary claiming that the statements were sourced, many were not & those that were had issues relating to reliability and to completeness - issues that had been tagged for a long time.

We're going to need sight of those tagged sources and explanations regarding reliability, especially for those sources from the Raj period. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by not properly sourced, do you mean sourced by the Government of India, obviously the sudhans beat the hell of the Indian Army that is why there is an Azad Kashmir

Adnan1216 (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I mean sourced in accordance with WP:RS. And original research such as your assessment of AK is definitely inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the sourced in accordance with wikipedia guidelines, I think government of Azad Kashmir is a verified source, why would it be different than one sourced from the World Bank of the Govt of India or the US. I would like to know which part of the article you are concerned is not properly sourced, I agree that if there is no source whatsoever than it should be deleted, however, I am not the only one who edited this article, there are many others. However, if a source is the government than it should be accepted. There is a clear difference of opinion between the people who live in Azad Kashmir and the Government of India as well as the state of Kashmir, so which one do you think should be acceptable. Both should be inserted.

Your comment that some had issues with reliability and to completeness is correct, however, only those should have been deleted, not everything. If you look at the history you will see there were a lot of arguments on this page between different editors, but not many of them just deleted everything. Trueblood (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Trueblood (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have written a whole paragraph in defense of the AJK government source, as if it was being used to cite the whole article, whereas it was used only for the claim that four individuals belonged to this tribe. The link to the AJK site in the article was dead/invalid, but I have searched the AJK site separately and couldn't find any mention of "Sudhan" tribe. -- S M S   Talk 04:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Here you go http://sudhaneducationconference.blogspot.com/ http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/oct/05raman.htm

the two above have references to the Sudhan tribe, additionally the district called sudnuti in AJK is for the Sudhan tribe

Trueblood (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A Self published source and an opinion piece. Why don't you take some time and read Identifying reliable sources. -- S M S   Talk 07:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Sitush, as you added they are also known as "Sudhozai". Are they related to Sadozai (Pashtun tribe)? Similar name, also a Pashtun tribe settled in Kashmir. -- S M S   Talk 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * , there seem to be numerous variant spellings of Sudhozai and so far I've not been able to determine the extent, if any, of synonymity. Some sources do say things like "Sudhan (Sadhozai)" and those are will provide the spellings ... but it looks like there may be more than one group using the names. I think we'll have to keep digging for more info. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How is redit a self something that you refer to, it is an indian hidoo news paper, so I guess it is pretty independent, so you guys win, I will just ask the Sudhan education conference to look into this site and have their 4000 members start editing, and review why you two have done to the Sudhan Tribe.

Trueblood (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't call rediff self something, I said it is an opinion piece. What is "hidoo"? And it is never about Winning or Losing. And please get familiar with Meatpuppetry policy. -- S M S   Talk 21:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So according to you a news paper article from India is an opinion piece, since you are a hindoo indian, you should know that news papers are sources. Maybe you think since a hindoo news paper told something you dont like, it is an opinion piece. Well let the 4000 members of the sudhans take care of this. They can also post not just you two hindoos. Your reference to Sudhan and Sadozai is correct, however if you had taken the time to read the whole article before your two hindoos destryoed it, you would have know that it was in the article. BTW most Sudhans are white blue eyed blonds, while most hindoos are black. Trueblood (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So this article is also an opinion piece. http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?22531

I am familiar with pupperty, you just started editiing i have edited for a long time, the only puppets here are you two hindoos

Trueblood (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I take it you dont think that Sudhans should have a right to edit information that concerns them, only hindoos should edit anything that has to to with Kashmir or Pakistan, well that is not what the policy intent is. You two hindoos recruited each other and destroyed this article. Well everyone should start looking at all of your edits not just this one,  and see how that would work.

Trueblood (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2016
Sudhan/ Sudan most of this is right but this tribe did migrate to the punjab state and is considered one of the principle Jatt or Jat clans in punjab now. I do have a source to prove this as the census back in 1911 http://www.jatland.com/home/Sudhan please give me access to this as I have most of the information from the older generation (my grandfather) as well who can give me all the right info to add. This all started with the partition of India and Pakistan and the sikhs caught in the middle of this the Sudhan tribe was stranded in between, most escaped to punjab,Jammu, and the rest stayed in Kashmir in the area closest to the border now known as poonch. Thank you. the information is right just change the following sentence "Sudhans (also known as Sudhozai) are one of the major tribes from the districts of Poonch, Sudhanoti, Bagh and Kotli in Azad Kashmir" to Sudhan/ Sudan (also known as Sudhozai) are one of the major Jatt tribes that originated from the districts of Poonch, Sudhanoti, Bagh and Kotli in Azad Kashmir.

GursewakSandhuu (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. Please note that neither what you "know" or what your grandfather "knows" are acceptable as you are not reliable sources and your information is not verifiable - Arjayay (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016
Sudhan is a jatt caste in punjab in mohali dist mostly belongs to agriculture

Xingh123 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Source
is it possible to search the source of sudhan tribe thriugh DNA? If yes then who can do this and when.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.218.234 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Mess
the history looks a right mess, and you seem to know the topic better than me. Could you help clean it up? &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  22:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have it on my To-do list. Not high on my priorities at the moment though. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And pages on castes/tribes always continue to be targets for glorification attempts, no matter how clean we make them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. I think it needs a good source check etc. I was away when this thread started, so sorry for the delay.


 * I've just reverted this because Musings and Memories doesn't sound like the sort of book that is likely to be reliable for history of a tribe and the other source was very obviously based on a highly specific search phrase and snippet view, which we do not do. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed it. The BRILL book about marriage among Muslims was citing a passage written by the Raj people in 1910 and so probably is not reliable (Raj sources generally are not, and the focus of the book isn't the political history etc of the area). I moved the Kapur book to Further reading. I have no idea regarding its reliability, although the publisher name of "Kashmir History Publications" might ring a few alarm bell. My issue was that it messed up what we were claiming was said by Sneddon and, well, like the recent extra information regarding the Pakistan issue, it seems overly detailed. I've no objection to it going back if we can agree on its reliability and if it is done in such a way that it does not make a nonsense of the Sneddon-sourced material and quote. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit and Sources removed by @Sitush
Why my edit has been removed from the page Sudhan, these is imported thing related to this group which should be mentioned, things like their rule in Army and their background. Robert Olivia (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * See the section immediately above. Note also that other contributors have expressed some concern that there may be too much in the way of glorification going on here. Even if you have decent sources, we should strive for balance. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush, Why has information provided by my edit been removed from the page Sudhan, as this is important and close related to this group, which should be mentioned, things like their rule in army and their background, these are things for what they are known for! If you read books & read history. I Wikipedia is to help people and this Information help people to understand about the group better. I met many Sudhan member and most of them shared this information while on Wikipedia page its mentioned less about them. Robert Olivia (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, see the section above. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

1838 and 1941 census
I've just removed a statement that included statistics from the 1838 and 1941 censuses. It was sourced but has two problems, based on my knowledge gleaned when writing articles such as Census of India prior to independence. The first is that I am not aware of a census taking place in 1838; the second is that the 1941 census was incomplete.

Are we sure that the source actually contains this information and, if it does, are there any qualifying statements relating to it? - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair use quotations
We have a massive quote in the article now and I think it may fall foul of our "fair use" criteria. I think we should be paraphrasing. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ancestry claims
Claims on Sudhans being Afghans is totally fabricated one. Even the real Sadozais in Afghanistan not even one fourth of their population and are rather an extended family than a clan.

Please keep in mind no-one is superior or inferior. Feel proud of what you are born no lies on race. What I know of them is Sudhans are Mohaal Brahmins or closely related to them. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Q: Can you justify why sudhan in poonch fought against those brahmins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.191.193.187 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It may well be fabricated but we say it is a claim, not a fact. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2022
117.220.140.127 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Thia ia wrong information. Sudan were the originals from the poonch, sudhnoti area. They were converted to muslim but kept there name.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Sodozai claim is totally false
Sodhun are Hill Brahmans according to the Kashmir Gazette 1881AD. The Kashmir census of 1881AD also placed them as Hill Brahmans.

Children of Sudhan Sat Pal of Mauryan descent.

This Sodozai story started after 1947 and is a total fabrication. 2603:7000:6300:28EB:5019:CE04:67F5:7FFF (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That is not true. The claim was way older than 1947. Just one evidence for this is the book "Punjabi Musalmans" written by Lieutenant Colonel J.M Wikeley.
 * "Male population.— 25,300. (Census 1838)" "The Sudhans are the most important tribe of Poonch, and of late years an increasing number have been enlisted in the Army. They claim Pathan origin and say that they are descendants of Ismail who founded Dera Ismail Khan, and also of one Jassi, who was a Pathan."
 * He also says in the book "The Sudhans have pride of race and look on them- selves as superior to any of the other tribes of Poonch, but they cannot be considerd high class Rajputs, which term, notwithstanding their claim to Pathan origin, they apply to themselves."
 * Therefore, it is certain that this is a old claim. There are other sources as well that prove that the Sudhans had been claiming to be descended from Pathans from much further back than this, but this is the most easily accessible one. Sazzrel (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)