Talk:Tarkhan (Punjab)/Archive 1

I Hope You Will Stop Interfering Brian In a Field of Which You Have No Knowledge
Brian, will you stop messing around with this page and sticking your big nose in where it is not concerened. Read Manu Smirti and Saka's being Kshatriya's. Also read genetic studies on Saka's making up the Punjabi population. Tarkhan's do not exist outside Punjab and are particular to Punjab, therefore they are probably the most Saka of Saka tribe's. Tarkhan's are mostly these profession's. It is a tradition to which they hold dear. You will find very few outside these profession's, if you knew anything about their history (Vishwakarma etc) or Sikh history generally you would know this. I would draw you to writings of Khuswant Singh, HA Rose and other's. Do not interfere with this post again. Thanks.

To 195.92.40.49: I am editing your changes to the page because they are a) grammatically incorrect and b) make broad unsupported statements about a group of people in an unencyclopedic manner. You cannot say "they [the Tarkhan tribe] are landowners, farmers, engineers, politicians, scientists, doctors, and soldiers" as if no Tarkhan ever engages in a different occupation. The sentence is altogether unencyclopedic and does not belong in this article. It is also inappropriate to say "they are said to be descendents of the Saka" without any indication of who says this. If you have a source cite it. Otherwise the best you can do is "they claim to be" - and even that is dubious. Please do not revert again without addressing these issues. --Briangotts (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please provide some citation for the assertion that the Tarkhans of Punjab are "mostly landowners, farmers, engineers, politicians, scientists, doctors, and soldiers." -Briangotts 15:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I second Briangotts. Bunty.Gill 17:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop interfering with the Tarkhan thread. Links have been put in now.

If you wish to avoid being banned for incivility, I suggest you engage in dialogue instead of personal attacks. You do not own this article (WP:OWN) and other editors contributing to it are not "interfering" with it. Please review Wikipedia policies before contributing further. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, when challenged for a source you are supposed to give a full citation to a published work, not name-drop. I have left your changes largely intact for now but I expect full cites. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

REPLY
I am sorry for any "incivilty" but I thought you were deliberetly vandalising the Tarkhan thread in order to push a specific agenda. I am not really concerned about bans, but am concerned that the truth is not distorted about these remarkable and dynamic people who ONLY inhabit the Land of the Five rivers (Punjab).

I could care less about pushing an agenda. What I do care about is having an accurate and grammatically correct article.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou Brian Gotts
Thanks for Creating this page it is very interesting and will be good for research.

Congratulation Brian Gotts
Masterful piece of work on a remarkable, industriuos people who I have admired from afar.

Re: Matharu's
Please will the editor substantiate claims about Matharu's on this page.

Military
Please back up military claims with figures and numbers.

Jack Porter
Some excellent work and research done on this page Jack.

Cleaning up
I had to do a lot of cleanup in this article. Large chunks of text were taken directly from web pages such as http://ramgarhia.org/ and http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/postgurus/ramgarhia2/ram%20Jassa%20Singh.htm - these I have removed. I have also neatened up the formatting and taken out some non-POV statements.

Speaking of which... when the tribe is described as great - as it is several times in the article - it's not clear whether this is non-POV or whether it's used to mean "large". I didn't remove it because I wasn't sure. If it is the former, it needs to be removed.

There is still clean up needed; mostly grammar and spelling.

... discospinster 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not mean large. Thanks


 * Since the word "great" is part of a direct quote, I did not take it out. However, I removed the emphasis. ... discospinster 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Disco could you leave some of the quotes of the heritage site or parts of them. You have taken everything about the origins of the Ramgarhia clan.


 * I took out that information because it was copied directly from a web site. If someone could re-write it in his or her own words, or a summary with a link to the web site, then it would be appropriate for Wikipedia. ... discospinster 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Books
hi Does any one know any books that have information about Tarkhans/Ramgarhias in? Can you please let me know. Thank you

Clarifications to this article
This article has a very wrong assertion of the Janjua being Tarkhan as well as the Kokhars. Tamerlane himself referred to the Kokhars as Jatts as well as the local accounts of Punjabi history books (Jatt page will refer) in the Zafarnama as well Babur calling the Janjuas Rajas. Any further clarification of this point should be cleared by checking the current Janjua page whjich is fully sourced and referenced with more than one book that has been mentioned (Ibbetson which I am not fully convinced has stated this...no page numbers to support citation?) hoever Eminent historians such as Alexander Cunningham, Elliot and Dowson, Lepel H Griffin as well as Professor Ahmed Hasan Dani to name but a few have referenced them as Rajputs as well as them themselves being descendants of Pandavas and the Shahis. I am more than aware (as are all ethnic Punjabis) mthat some clans stated their surnames to other well known clans during the period of partition and the British Raj. This happened even in Pakistan which had a poor recruitment policy in the army of only recruiting Rajputs from well known tribes. Many faked the names to gain employment as a way out of poverty. They have been recognised as this and are widely disparaged for this in Pakistan. It would be in poor taste to include the family names Kokhar and the like as Tarkhan Gotras when they are clearly not so? I hope this is understood and I am in no way trying to offend any brothers on here, please believe me.

I am removing these two names from this piece and would suggest the article is better sourced as I agree with the above of it being quite unecyclopedic in language in places. In fact after reading the Baburnama, I have read clear references of the Tarkhans being an allied tribe or a rank who entered India with him? There needs to be more elaboration of this than POV pushing guys.--Raja 21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

REBBUTLE - Dear Sir, we do not really care for opinion, only fact and before you edit with the article please take care to read it. It is clearly stated that some Tarkhan, Lohar tribes are decended from Jatts and Rajputs. Infact their is an entire section on this. The page number you are looking for is page 313 from Ibbeston. Note also Rose, Griffin and Cunningham confirm links between Rajput tribes and Tarkhans too. Furthermore also prominent Sikh personalities and warriors such as Bhai Roop Chand Khokkhar, although Tarkhan can trace their lineage to a Rajput dynasty. Thanks


 * My friend I am not here to offend anybody as stated above. Then please let us discuss this point like adults then. Are you then claiming that Tarkhan is a class/trade that any other tribe, class can fall in to? If this is so, then this needs to be clarified at the beginning of the article where it is slightly misleading in indicating that they are Saka in origin and that Janjua and Kokhar are now a Gotra of Tarkhan. They are clearly not. But if some as you stated have fallen into this class it must be stated.
 * If you are stating it is a 'ethnic group', then again, this needs to be elaborated further.
 * As far as not caring for opinion, I didnt state one Sir, I claimed fact, of which there are more books proving than simply Mr Ibbetson's. A mild pretension to belonging to a certain clan doesnt make one part of that clan. It would certainly be unfair to accept that and create a whole gotra out of it.--Raja 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I do not know if you are a Tarkhan, but it is my experience that many Tarkhans do not like and even hate any association with Rajputs and Jatts. They do however, have to face up to an overwhelming fact that their tribe is made up of a number of ethnic groups, be they Jatt, Rajput, Kambhoj, Lohar, Saka or otherwise. The research for this article has been laborious and what I suugest is before dismissing Ibbeston, you should look into other publications into this matter. Their are many Gotra's that cross from Rajput to Jatt, to Tarkhan, To Lohar, to Khambho, to Labana and even Chamar. It is easy to become a degraded Rajput or Kshatriya my friend, history is testimony to that, and it is confirmed in the texts you quote and many others. Also read Manu Smirti. I can cite hundreds of sources for this article, but the editors have made me withdraw them. If you wish a more extensive list I can provide it. Thanks

RE: Clarifications
I want to let the gentleman know who said that Tarkhans "hate" Jatts that he has been misinformed. In Sikh-Punjabi community, Jatts work side by side with Tarkhans, thaere is no haterid between Jatts and Tarkhans. Being a Sikh Tarkhan i know this first hand.

I would also like to point out that Jangua is a Rajput name but many Rajputs fell to the Status of De-graded Kshatriya. Thank you


 * I agree. I know of many Tarkhans who state open friendships and dealings with Jatts and Rajputs in a positive tone, this is both in Punjab and the west. That view above is a very bitter one mentioned by the poster above. It's clearly a social group in which anyone can be degraded to by your definitions above, but then the article starts of claiming Saka origins for Tarkhans and later states others fell into from other higher tribes. Confusing at best, and futile to negotiate in the least. Goodluck.--Raja 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I am not saying Tarkhan hate Rajputs or Jatts, but rather hate association with any other tribe. They do not like the idea that they were once Jatts or degraded Rajputs who fell on hard times and took up carpentry and blacksmithing. Actually the article is not confusing Raja, but you are showing a lack of understanding. Saka's describes a mass body (most likely Scythian), within this body descended many different ethnic groups, Jatts, Rajputs, Tarkhan's, Lohar's etc. Once you have gotten your head around that concept you will understand how Saka's were considered degraded Kshatriya's. Rajputs had already consolidated their position by paying obsience to Brahmin's so they never fell.


 * Wrong again. It's confusing because;
 * a. You claim Tarkhans are Sakas in origin (an unproven claim)
 * b. That certain members of well known tribes became Tarkhans, names mentioned such as Bhatti and Janjua for example are clearly Aryan in descent, this openly negates the above (a).
 * c. By beginning the article as you have referring first to the Saka origin, it is misleading to what actually a Tarkhan is/was. You clearly mention degraded status now, but the article didnt initially reflect the main artisan trade.
 * And finally, you show your embitterment when you mention the paying obesience to Brahmins. Thats irrelevant to the article and infact untrue. How were Brahmins power brokers? Which Rajputs or other prominent clans gained a Kingdom by worshipping a Brahmin? Please be serious.
 * Some interesting points in this discussion. Note that a famous active Ramgarhia today is the direct descendent of Bhai Roop Chand Khokhar, who was a Tarkhan of Rajput origin. This is no doubt a Saka connection. My opinion is that Tarkhans are a mixture of Indo-Aryan and Saka tribes. So a would not negate b. A few questions:
 * Is not the titel Rajput like that of a Knight and bestowed by Brahmins, to upholders of Dharma (Hinduism)? Is it not true there are many Saka tribes who did not accept the Authority of the Brahmin and the Law of Manu and therefore were considered Sudra? Are not Tarkhan according to Manu Smiriti Ayogavas, or Vaishya's with an occupation that no other Vaishya will do?--Sikh-history 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Chadha can be found amongst Tarkhans. I am not sure about the others though.

Tarkhan Past and Present
To all whom this may be of interest I would like to bring up two issues. The first relates to the origins of the Tarkhan tribe/caste. It has come to my attention that 'Tarkhan' is also a title used in the army of Timur the Lame, which was designated to persons with a General-like status. This title was also designated to the people known as Khazars. In India the tribe/caste name of Gujjar is known or suggested to be a dialectal translation of Khazar. It is also known that Timur the Lame's armies had invaded and controlled regions of present day Afghanistan, Pakistan and India which Tarkhan populations were mostly concentrated prior to the partition of 1947. Is it possible that the Tarkhans of Punjab are related in anyway to the Tarkhans of Timur the Lame's army? The second issue is the position Tarkhans hold in the Hindu Varna Hierarchy. It is argued by many that Tarkhans are either Kshatriyas, Vaishyas or Shudras. At the moment in India they are included on the Other-Backward-Class (OBC) list which implies that they are or were Shudras. However because of exploration of past history and modern day achievement the traditional position is obscure. So can someone with the right knowledge designate the tribe in the way that is most suitable and sensible. As it stands some Tarkhans have a martial background enforced by the rise of Sikhism and figures such as Jassa Ramgarhia and Roop Chand Khokhar, which implies a Kshatriya status; some Tarkhans have a business-like background that implies a Vaishya status and some Tarkhans have fallen into poverty implying a Shudra status.

Sakas
Sakas either make Punjabi people nor were theyself Hindus. The Sakas moved to central India, to Rajastan, far away from any stinky Pakistani. Descends of Sakas are only the Rajputs who also have their origine in huns and hephtalits, like some Afghan tribes.

Ps:Tarkhans and Gujars are not descends of TAKHARS (not Tarkhans!) who were a scythian tribe that settled in Sogdiana and north Afghanistan, in the northern province of TAKHARISTAN (TOCHARER)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)