Talk:Mohyal Brahmin

Swami Sahajanand

Mohyal Brahmans were the original Hindu Shahi rulers of Afghanistan. They were are great warriors and their origin is fromAfghanistan the Haraxvaiti (Sarasvati) river in Afghanistan. They went to other regions of the subcontinent later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A180:F700:934:46E:9B81:6AB8 (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello 220.225.244.42:

Swami Sahajanand and the famous poet Ramdhari Singh Dinkar actually belonged to the Bhumihar community. While that is considered a sister community of Mohyals in various aspects, it is still a distinct ethnic group of its own. Given that I am reverting some of your edits under the Famous Mohyals section.

Best regards, Hu114sp 14:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They are Brahmin

Mohyal are Brahmin. There has never been a question that they are Brahmin.--ISKapoor 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello ISKapoor:

I am really appreciative of some of your other contributions to Wikipedia but regret to say that you were off the mark with some of your recent edits on the Mohyal page. I am sure if you research a bit about Mohyals you will yourself agree.

Your edits make the article quite Hindu centric. Mohyals as an ethnic group exists across religions; There are Hindu, Sikh and Muslim Mohyals. Within the Hindu Varna system, no one questions the classification as Brahmin- in fact supposedly rated at the "higher" end in the bunjahi caste hierarchy in West Punjab- and the article prior to your edits did not suggest otherwise either. However, I hope you agree that is not a reason for clubbing the entire community as a Brahmin group.

Whether we like it or not, the Shahmukhi script remains in use with Mohyals, including Hindu Mohyals living in India, and removing the "Mohyal" word written in that language also suggests an attempt to present the article from a purely Hindu perspective. Some of the more well known Urdu writers in India are in fact Mohyals- Jamna Das Akhtar, Kashmiri Lal Zakir etc.

Regarding customs- Indeed, Mohyal Hindus are usually passionate about maintaining their faith; it has only not manifested in the same outlook as with some other Hindu groups.

Unlike other Brahmin groups, Hindu Mohyals indeed have not had taboos against interacting with other communities. They were often clubbed with Pathans in the British Indian Army, especially in the Guides- something that would not be the case had they strictly followed customs of some other Brahmin groups. Among Hindus I think Mohyals are the only group where many families follow circumcision. The sacred thread popular with other Brahmins isn't worn either. Do you still think their customs aren't somewhat different than other Brahmin groups?

Given all that, I am reverting some of your edits, but will leave your request for citation in place and will be glad to research and provide that. I know that as a fact but am sure there will be sources from which I can validate.

With best regards,

Hu114sp 02:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashamed to be a Brahmin?

There is no doubt whatsoever that Mohyals are Brahmin.

I am aware of the anti-Brahmanism that prevails in Punjab. Ever since the British supported tat-Khalsa movement started, there has been an attempt to ridicule and criticize Brahmins. Today ordinary Sikhs are no longer told that many of the individuals (see Chhibber)associated with the Gurus were Brahmin; while they make sure the Gangu the cook is referred to as Brahmin.

Every single work that Guru Gobind Singh wrote or supervised, has been declared by spurious by anti-Hindu Sikh authors. The Rahit Namas written by the companions of the Dasam Guru have been rejected because they have been written by Brahmins.

If you are a Mohyal, let me tell you, you have nothing to be ashamed of.

The Punjabi brahmins are the descendants of rishis who composed the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata and many other texts.

Have you read the autobiography of Guru Gobind Singhji? I recommend you read it.

--ISKapoor 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen some Pakistanis who are well known to be descendants of the Rajputs, start claiming that they are actually descendants of Arab invaders.

But this is first time I have someone disavow Brahmin descent.--ISKapoor 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Not!

There is no question of any such shame or embarassment. On the contrary, all Hindu and even the Sikh Mohyals that I know do look up respectfully to the ancient Rishis who are regarded as the 7 clans' progenitors. Hindu Mohyals usually are passionately proud of their religious identity, way more than you probably imagine. And being a Brahmin is a part of that identity, while priesthood is not.

I think you are misinterpreting the bit on ostracism. The sole purpose of such actions was to maintain some core traditions followed by the community. The fact is that on more than one occassion, Mohyals have made a conscious decision to part with some of their members to sustain the practice of priesthood in areas where no other Hindu was available to do it. This was accompanied by a ritual excommunication only to preserve the core community tradition of not accepting charity. (Example- Dewan Hira Nand of Kabul, son of a high ranked Afghan General (Dewan Narain Das) and brother of a high ranked officer in British NWFP, who came forward to become a priest at an derelict Hindu shrine in Peshawar- at the price of his place in the Mohyal community.)

I fully agree that there is a lot of unfair Brahmin bashing in sections of Punjab, and actually that goes further back in time than you suggest. I even think that such undercurrents may have played some role in the past, in prodding Mohyals to adopt some customs that differentiated them from the priestly Brahmin- though I am certain there were other bigger factors as well. Hindu Mohyals' pride in their identity has been in fact been sustained in spite of such an adverse environment.

Contrary to your perception, I think that Mohyals, by their history of sacrifices, and by choosing to not have taboos of interaction with other communities, by choosing to have a tradition that emphasizes against religious bigotry, on hard work, refusal to accept charity and through some other values, have only helped showcase their Hindu and Brahmin side very positively in areas where even sustaining a non Muslim identity was difficult.

With best regards,

Hu114sp 21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Are Gakhars Muslim Mohyals

A Revision as of 15:36, 13 August 2006 by ip 72.145.122.123 in the History secton of this article states that the Gakhars are one of the six clans of Mohyals that converted to Islam .....would one of the contributors to this article please shed more light on this aspect .What is the source of this information ?? Can somebody add to this and other related information or sources ...interestingly the Gakhars seem to ref to a clan history called the Kai Gohar nama written by a Mohyal as well ....please see the Gakhar page . I have myself been working on the clan history of the Gakhars and there is a lively discussion on the Gakhar talk page ...with regard to my refutations of the alluded history of the Gakhars that has been collated on the Gakhar page .Would appreciae a response .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Intothefire,

I apologize for any confusion the edit may have caused, but it actually does not state that Gakhars are Muslim Mohyals. What it does say instead is that as per Mohyals' oral and written history, the Gakhars prior to their en-masse adoption of Islam were part of a larger endogamous group of 52 lineages- of which Mohyals were also a part.

Regarding other stuff- Mohyal folklore also mentions of Gakhars' reputation of being fierce fighters who always fought well under some Kings whose lineages Mohyals claim to share, and also of Gakhars being rulers at some stages in history. They are also remembered as people with fine traditions of chivalry and loyalty, qualities that Mohyals traditionally extol as well. There is not a whole lot more I know on Gakhars, but will be glad to share what Mohyal history says on any specific questions you might have- if I'm aware.

Best regards,

Hu114sp (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Source removed

I have removed a source from this article, viz. History of the Mohyals by P N Bali (1985). Neither the book nor the author is listed at Worldcat, on Amazon or on GBooks, nor could I find any useful hits elsewhere (other than mirrors etc). Without details of publisher/page numbers etc and some indication that this is in fact a reliable source, it should not be used in this or any of the myriad other Mohyal-related articles. My suspicion is that it will be a self-published work by an amateur caste historian, which simply will not cut the mustard, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC). MR.P.N BALI IS CORRECT FOR MOHYALS & T.P RUSEL STRACEY WAS ENGLISH WRITER WHO TOO WROTE ABOUT MOHYALS. THIS IN FACT IS VERY CORRECT & VAST HISTORY ONE END WE HAVE LAKSHMANDASS CHIBBER ALIAS SOURCE IS MOHYAL MITTER MONTHLY MAGZINE & DNA OF MOHYALS -OR BANDABHADUR POPULARLY KNOWN IN SIKHS & BHAI MATI DASS JI CHIBBER WAS ALSO A MOHYAL BUT IN PRE ERA MOHYALS BRANCH DATT'S TO HAVE OBELIGE MUSLIMS IN BATTLE OF KARBALA.MANY MOHYALS IN DATT'S OBSERVE MOHRUM EVEN TODAY TO DATE IN DELHI,PUNE ETC WHERE THEY ARE SETTLED.TRUE VERSION.INFACT MOHYALS ALWAYS SERVED HUMANITY & FAUGHT FOR JUSTICE LET IT BE ANY ABOBY IN EARTH SINCE AGES SO GREAT WORK OF PN BALI SHOULD BE ALSO RECOGNISED & ACCEPTED. I AM 100% MOHYAL & ALOS NO OTHER BODY IS COMPETANT TO GIVE THEM CERIFICATIONS.BETTER TO ACCEPT THE CORRECT MOHYALS THIS COMPLEX QUESTIONS,TO UNDERSTAND LEARN/VIEW FROM ANGLE OF TRUTH ,JUSTICE,EQUALITY,HUMANITY PRINCIPLES WHICH MOHYALS FOLLOW & SHALL CONTINUE.YOUR AMAZON OR OTHER BODIES ARE JUST BORN TODAY & THIS RELICS FLOW IN MOHYALS BLOOD FROM GENERATIONS TO GENERATIONS[TRUTH ,JUSTICE,EQUALITY,HUMANITY PRINCIPLES ].WE HAVE TO DATE VILLAGES IN PAKISTAN & INDIA WHERE THEIR CIVILISATION EVOLVED.STRONGLY SUPPORT P.N. BALI-JAI MOHYAL,JAI -HIND.TRUTH CAN NEVER BE REMOVED BY ADVERTISEMENTS & TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL FOR GREAT MOHYALS.WHO SERVED & RULED INDIA IN BEST OF SPRIT & SERVED MENKIND IN BEST EXAMPLARY WAYS.SHALL CONTINUE TO DO SO ............YES DATTS ARE TITLED GLORIOUSLY FOR VALOUR OFTEN HUSSAINI BHRAMINS & YES MOHYALS OTHER BRANCH OF CHIBBERS WERE WITH SIKHS.I AM DATT MOHYALS WHOSE ANCESTORS FAUGHT ON THE SIDE OF KARBALA FOR PROFET MO. SHAIB & MY MOTHER SIDE[MATERNALLY] FAMILY SACRIFICED FOR SIKHS /HINDUS WITH MUSLIMS RULERS OF COUNTRY NOT MUSLIMS AS MANY MUSLIMS TO SUPPORTED SIKHS VIZ:-NAWAB OF MALERKOTLA. IN FACT IT WAS MOHYALS ALWAYS WITH TRUTH & JUSTICE. BUT WITH TIME MOVEMENTS-DIRECTIONS CHANGED.STRONG OBJECTIONS TO REMOVALS OF TRUTH.

References

Recent references

Hello Sitush,

I agree with your perspective on PN Bali's work.

However, I disagree with declaring other references unreliable merely based on the fact that they date to the era of the British Raj. Let's take for example, the reference from Sir Lepel Griffin's work that I'd added. This is the same Lepel Griffin whose work on Maharaja Ranjit Singh is frequently cited by professional historians, and in fact used on other Wikipedia pages as well.

Please also help me understand why the man who is considered India's most decorated General (with a 'non-British-era' and 'non-caste-history' reference to back it up), not appropriate for inclusion in the list of notable Mohyals. I'm not that well-versed with Wikipedia so would appreciate knowing the criteria. The reference for Vijay Rattan Choudhary's Maha Vir Chakra was also not from the British era.

Regards,

Hu114sp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Which professional historians? I know that Lepel Griffin & H. A. Rose etc are extensively cited here on Wikipedia but that just demonstrates how poor our content is in this sphere. Rose, for example, bases his work on Ibbetson's 1883 effort and even Ibbetson said that was unreliable. As a general rule, we prefer more modern stuff and indeed a lot of the Raj sources have been culled already.

Some of the criteria regarding listing of notables can be found in User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Does this answer your query? - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You have just added this citation. It is pointless: the issue at hand is whether the chap is Mohyal, not whether he obtained a medal, and the source seems not to mention that. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The authors who have cited Lepel Griffin in well-regarded works include Khushwant Singh, Patwant Singh, and John Keay.

There's probably no human who can be counted on as a flawless authority on any subject - and for sure Griffin is no exception. For example, his uncharitable statements about Bengalis are something I find opinionated and not fact-based. However, using that as a basis for a blanket-approach to dismiss all the other things of immense value from him is something I'd disagree with.

Regarding references for Maj. Vijay Rattan Choudhry - It is rather obvious that his Mohyal identity wouldn't figure in his MVC citation. 'Evidence' that he was a Mohyal can only be found in Mohyal community journals.. in say, obituaries about him/donations from his family in his name. Given that, I feel there should be a little more consideration for accepting such things in good faith. I completely agree though, that no person should be listed in any community's notables who himself/herself would not have cared for that label.

In reality, nearly a dozen other Mohyals have also earned Mahavir Chakras. It is actually quite a feat, considering the tiny size of the community. While Mohyals are well known in defence circles, their tiny numbers mean that the Mohyal identity of the winners hardly gets a mention in most news articles. So while the purpose of the guidelines is understandable, they indeed make it challenging to successfully include notable accomplishments of a small community's proud military tradition.

Regards,

Hu114sp (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh is a journalist/novelist; John Keay is a journalist/TV historian; Patwant Singh was a polemicist. None should really be used as sources on Wikipedia, except for their own opinions. Patwant may, just may, qualify as a serious historian who has been trained to appreciate their historian predecessors and to convey their meaning (there cannot be many who have written about history and in various construction magazines!) but the other two most definitely do not. Since you cannot provide decent verification for Choudhry other than, basically, what his family says, he too should go.

We cannot bend rules etc just because a community is small and neglected. I realise that all this must be disheartening and I'm trying to find something at JSTOR that might rescue Griffin but the thing keeps timing out on me at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on! Haven't you heard of Khushwant Singh's volumes on the "History of the Sikhs" (Oxford University Press, 1963)? Don't tell me now that just because he's also been an acclaimed journalist & novelist, it discredits him as a historian? This is how a publishing house of repute describes his work "First published in 1963, this remains the most comprehensive and authoritative book on the Sikhs. The new edition updated to the present recounts the return of the community to the mainstream of national life. Written in Khushwant Singh's trademark style to be accessible to a general, non-scholarly audience, the book is based on scholarly archival research." While I appreciate any efforts to keep Wikipedia clean, going to unreasonable degrees in the name of doing that is just not right. And I'm not asking for bending rules, just doing what's right and reasonable.

Hu114sp (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of it being of any significance. Historiography has moved on since the early 1960s, and I note that edition was a revision of a still-earlier work. Who is the "publishing house of repute" whom you quote? And how does Singh refer to Griffin? - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That description is part of an editorial review used by Oxford University Press itself, and other publishers too. The issue is this: just because historiography evolves, as it always has, that doesn't diminish the value of the sources that form the basis of the history. In the end, we have to bank on the accounts that are available, especially contemporaneous ones, and pick what is reasonable from them. Your sweeping generalization of all Raj era sources is simply unreasonable. By your logic, entire medieval texts would need to be dismissed as sources, just because they also contain exaggerations at places. - Hu114sp (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Blimey, this is a blast from the past! I've since read Khushwant Singh myself (well, his first volume) and I've also done some digging around about him. He's ok but that doesn't mean, for example, that Raj sources are ok: those are generally discredited (see James Tod or H. H. Risley, for example). - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hussaini Brahmin

Synonym Sitush (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. Mohyal is main branch Datt/Dutt is sub branch. It is better to tag the article for deletion, if it is not according to your wish and laid down criteria. I have placed this article for WAM competition you have placed it in a dust bin. thank you Sitush. Nannadeem (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC) [TO BE USED AS ANNEXURE FOR MOHYAL-DATT'S. AS VITAL PIECE OF ANCESTORS HISTORY & THIS COMMUNITY IS HIGHLY RESPECTED IN BOTH RELEGIONS & SYMBOL OF BROTHERHOOD OF MENKIND-SUPREME SACRIFICE OF DATT'S FOR HAZRAT PROFIT MOHAMAD SHAIB IN THOSE DAYS.THIS HUSSAINI BHRAMIN TAG WAS AWARDED AS TITLE SO YOU MAY SAY MOHYAL-DATT'S(HUSSAINI BHRAMINS)I.E IN BRAKETED FORM.THUS IS TWIN IDENTITY OF GLORIOUS & GALLANTRY OF COMMUNITY.IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF REWARDS OF VALOUR BESTOWED ON DATT'S BY CALLING THEM HUSSAINI'S BHRAMINS TOO].

Sourcing

Please do not use:

• Sources from the British Raj era or earlier
• Sources that have been self-published
• Sources that originate from members of the caste or its associations

Also, for citations:

• Provide a full cite (author, publisher, title, date, page number etc)
• Do not cite generic search results, eg: a link to the outcome of a Google search
• Do not cite a book, newspaper or journal that you cannot see in full

And more generally, do not search for specific terms because that results in confirmation bias. By all means search for mohyal brahmin and work off what you get that way but as soon as you start searching for things like mohyal brahmin warriors seven rishis and similar you will run the risk of distorting things by applying your own knowledge to the process.

I hope this makes sense. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)