Talk:Sudhan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Employment

whatever is written is with full research based...any confusions you can send and ask

Rebellion against Pakistan Army

Dear Friend from holland, this is a significant event in the history of Poonch and Sudhans, if you want to discuss it is the way to do this, but dont just erase this as it is against the policy of wikipedia

Dear Friend, Do you have any proof of this event..if you claim something you must evidence it through citations or references to a reputable source. If you provide this then I will accept this as fact.

It is a fact that Sudhun rebelled during 1954 and that Pakistan Army send in military to suppress the rebellion, this is part of history and has to be reported, just becaue Pakistanis now dont know about this does not make it someones right to erase this.

rawalakot1

At the cost of sounding redundant please reference this 'fact' through citations from a reputable source. If it is a fact then prove it.

IT WAS a rebellion against the ,liaquat ali khan who was the prime minister certain people of sudhan tribe were with the socialist movement ,they indulged in the rebel activities....later because of the differnces with the ch:ghulam abbass! and col:sher ahmed khan the panjab constabulary was sent to catch the persons ...in certain areas they were brutally crushed and in other areas the constabulary people lost badly

That will have to be looked into (there still isn't any references) and before it was the Army that got crushed now it's the Police?

Why dont you discuss this rebellion rather than removing it and vanalizing the site ?

trueblood 03:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since, there is no citations for this and no proof has been given I am going to delete it. Feel free to contact a moderator on this issue.24.90.163.84 18:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

The opening section of this revision should be moved to a "Locations" section and be more descriptive of what "Sudhun" is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raijinili (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Hoax

I think we the sudhans are too emotional and write things which harm us in the long run. But for Sudhans there would not have been Azad Kashmir. So how can the Sudhans revolt against Pakistan army when almost 90 percent able bodied Sudhans used to join Pakistan Army. Sudhans were there as part of senior military bureaucracy in the Govts of Yahya Khan , Zia ul Haq and Parwez Musharraf. Sudhans are back bone of Pakistan army and are extremely fine soldiers. In 1954 the issue was not Sudhans versus pak Army. The differences between Colonel sher Ahmad and Sardar Ibrahim were exploited and the situation was mishandled. Sudhans have contributed a lot towards Pakistan and some ignorant and irresposible people have provided ammunition to our opponents who are enjoying the throne of Muzaffarabad by maligning us. if any one has a doubt i will prove the point by quoting histry and will refer the inquisitor to people who are still living and have hard evidence available( sudozai@gmail.com)

Pushton Tribes

What the people in Peshawar think about their ancestory has nothing to do with Sudhans, half of Pakistan has the last name of Khan. And for your information prior to the Shah of Iran most of Iran also had the last name of Khan. The origin of Khan is Mongolian not Pushtun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.13.123 (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually it isn't Mongolian but Tartar. Genghis Khan's name was not in the form it is now - this is due to Muslim historians naming all Central Asian overlords as Khans. Secondly, Sir Olaf Caroe and the Anglo-Indian Dictionary (1886) cites it as '...although it is now used by Mohomedans as a sort vague equivalent of Esquire.....properly however of those claiming a Pathan descent' (p.479)- and Sir Caroe (1958) 'The appellation Khan is claimed by every Pathan as of right' p.86. This indicates that only Pathans have used this as a common surmane whilst others had to be bestowed with the title as being of princely or aristocratic status. You are totally wrong when you say that half of iran had Khan as a surname. The reality is that it was the surname of Shah of Iran - his origins were in northern Iran hence Tartar/Turkic, and he his father gave it up upon acquiring the Peacock throne as has been the practice before e.g. Farid Khan became Sher Shah Suri to name but a few.

By last comment is that you should not belittle you benefactors. It is due to these same Pathans you are able to be Azad Kashmiris and not part of Maqbooza ilaqas in India. We can talk about this further if you wish but I don't think you'd want to open that debate here. Imran Jadoon.

Pathans

It was not Pathans who beat the Indian Army, rather it was our fathers and grand fathers who fought and beat back the Indian Army. For your information, we sudhans did beat the Pakistan Army in 1956 just like the proud Pathans are now doing as well as the proud Baluchis.

Finally, how do you explain the khan names in Iran, obviusly they are not Pathans. We have nothing to do with Sadozai. It is surprising that you would quote English historians to validate your point, what makes you think they told the truth, according to the English the Indians which includes all Pakistan were no better than dogs. So I would suggest you leave the Sudhans alone and stick with Pushton tribes that consider themselves Pathans. Maybe it would have been better to be in a democratic country rather than in a Dictatorship where the Army is intent on Killing the Baluchis and Pathans. I have nothing against the Pathans, we would be proud to be called Pathans, but historically we are not Pathans. Pathans are a proud lot who are being subjugated by the Pakistan Army and its Punjabi overlords.

We just want our own identity and we know what it is. It is not Puston it might even be Brahmin or Russian but not Pathan.

In reference to your idea that Khan is from Tartar, please see Khan it was brought to Afghanistan from Mongols. There is no disagreement on this. Also most of Iran had the name Khan, but Shah Iran's father outlawed the name Khan. So the name Khan does not denote one being Pustun. Rather it is a name which is used by Muslims all over India, Central Asia etc. But incidently it is not used by the Tartars as you alledged.

Finally, your comment about Pakis being our benefactors you are clearly wrong, our only benefactor is God who guides us and who has protected us. Please dont denigrate our tribe if you have a tribe than edit their site, maybe you should edit the site for Sadozai and fix that one Rehara1 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong on so many counts but in this message I'll confine myself to only a few. The Pashtun lashkar responded to calls from The Quaid e Azam to liberate Kashmir. Many members of my own family volunteered to this call - some were martyred just outside Srinagar. This no fantacy like your beating of Pakistan army. The famous saying 'tapseen te thus karseen' is attributed to the Kashmiris who when given rifles by the Pashtuns to fight off the Dogras responded thus - it means when it's hot it will fire off. They said this because thay put the rifles in the fields. I went to the Tribal areas of NWFP in 1988 and met an old man who along with my great-uncles was in the PAshtun lashkar and repeated this same story. He further said that it is true that the lashkar killed many Kashmiris unintentionally because these Pashtuns could not speak Urdu or Punjabi and just asked these people to say the Kalima to ascertain their religion and they were not able to do so hence the tragic conclusion that they are non-Muslims so they died. These same Kashmiris also 'shopped' these liberators to the Indians the Mujahids were killed. This thing happened again when the Kashmiris of Maqbooza Kashmir relayed the news of impending arrival of Pakistani troops in the guise of Kashmiris Mujahids to the occupying Indian authorities with predictable results. Secondly, they were not considered fighting people because they refused to fight against the Dogras in colloboration with the invading Pathans and were refused entry into Pakistan army for decades. Furthermore, the only people who fought against the Dogras were the communities of the the Northern Areas of Pakistan, who managed to eject the Dogras from Gilgit etc. without any help from current Azad Kashmiris hence their inclusion in the Pakistan proper. They refuse to be classified as Kashmiris despite the best efforts of Azad Kashmir Assembly. Another indication of the total oppression of the Kashmiris by the Dogras is the apparent fact that to this day Azad Kashmiris are reluctant to eat Beef which they call 'Bara Gosht' indicating their reluctance to offend Hindus or their total subjugation which is still prevalent to this day. The majority of the Mujahids fighting in MAqbooza kashmir are non-Kashmiris - some are even Bengalis but a less than a handful are Kashmiris of any descriptions. It is reported that even Chechens are there too. The hills of Mansehra have been training camps for the Mujahidin but non in 'Azad' KAshmir.

Please be aware of the fact that it is very probable that you are a Muslim because of some PAshtun bringing the religion to Kashmir. Your anti-Pakistani feelings are misplaced - look at the fate of your compatriots in India. You are Azad because of Pashtuns primarily and this azadi is maintained by rest of Pakistanis. I would love it if Pakistan can do a deal with India and get some of the regions of East Punjab in trade for Kashmir. It is better not to hold on to a region whose people habour such feelings - as happened in East Pakistan - than put our own progress under threat. Pakistan Paindabad. I do not think you are Russians. Maybe Brahmins but not Russians as they are a martial race like Pashtuns. Imran Jadun.

Reply to Pathans

Dear Friend

Sudhans dont hold ill feelings towards Pakistan. I think you keep on missing the point. It is the Pathans and Baluchis who are now rising up and fighting the Pakistan Army.

For your information Sudhans constitute a large part of Pakistan Army. For example, General Rahim Khan, Muhammad Aziz Khan who incidently was responsible for brining the dictator Mushraff to power and hundreds of others, these happen to be from our tribe and I know them very well.

The fact you state about Northern Areas is a fantasy, created by Pakistan, for instance the head of Kashmir Liberation Front is from Gilgit and he is a hero to most people in Northern Areas as well as in Azad Kashmir.

Secondly you should be aware of the fact that during the Second World War over 50,000 Sudhans were fighting in Europe and Burma. My own relatives fought there including my father who was in the Air Force and was a fighter pilot, later he was in Pakistan Air Force. Lt. Col Tassadaq was head of the Army of Oman.

It does not matter what is a Martial race that is a subjective thing in any case and it seems that every Pakistani believes they are from a Martial race, I guess that is why Pakistan Army has lost every war with India and now with the Pathans, so much for your martial race theory. What counts is winning not just propaganda, another interesting fact is that most Pakistanis somehow believe they have nothing to do with India, in fact before 1947 all of Pakistan was India and were all called indians. Even now you should know that in England there is no difference in the eyes of the English, between Indians and Pakistanis, they are both called Pakis, and no one can tell the difference, they both have the same culture, speak the same languange and most Pakistanis dont even watch Pakistani movies they go to Indian movies.

I am sorry for offending you, but if Sudhans dont want to be considered Pathans that should not offend you. Our own DNA study confirms the facts, and what matters is what we believe not what someone else belives. Some of us believe we are decended from Brahmins and if we are, we are proud of that fact. if we are decended from Russians or even africans that should not upset you.

Kashmir was a beautiful peaceful place that has been destroyed by the so called Mujahedeen as you call them, you are correct, these people are not Kashmiris, therefore they should go back to there own countries and leave our paradise alone.

Why is it that in Azad Kashmir, Kashmiris are not allowed to vote in an open election for representatives of JKLF, because the Pakistanis know that JKLF would win.

The Pathans who went into Kashmir valley did in fact kill thousands of Kashmiris, whether it was by mistake or not is not the issue. The fact that you mention that they wanted to kill all hindus is in of itself disgusting and disturbing. Islam does not allow muslims to kill someone just because of their religion. The idea that if a Kashmiri does is not a muslim and thus should be killed is anti Islamic and barbaric.

For your information Kashmiris dont speak Urdu or Punjabi but Kashmiri. That is what people speak in the Valley. And someone who told you that the Pathans killed Kashmiris by mistake as they did not know how to ask someone religion is again a fantasy and if true clearly stupid.

Most Pathans that went to Kashmir valley came from the tribal areas of NWFP and not from Mansera or the hill tribes such as swat etc.

Most Sudhans live in Sudnoti[1] which is the Poonch district and not Muzzafarabad so your analysis is incorrect. Their are Rajputs and others who live in Muzzarafabad, but not Sudhans. The Jadoons again have nothing in common with Sudhans, they speak Hindkoo, which we dont speak, it has some common terms not exactly the same. When I grew up in Peshawar, I was always under the understanding that Hinkoo speakers were not pathans.

I dont know about Jinnah and what he did or did not do. You cannot change history. All you have to do is go to Kashmir and ask the people what they want. We have a 90% literacy rate for both men and women in Azad Kashmir no thanks to Pakistan.

We are not Wahabis but Hanafi. We have good relations with Pathans, thousands of them live in Rawalakot and run small businesses.

Pustoons did not bring Islam to Kashmir, it were Sufis from Iran and Turkey, we still have their graves and they are revered saints.

It is really good that you believe that the so called liberation fighters are being trained in Mansera, this is exactly what the Indian Government has been saying for years, that Kashmiris are not the one killing people but foreign trained terrorists, so you must be in agreement with the Government of India.

We in Azad Kashmir dont want these people destroying our country, just like they have done in Afghanistan and are now intent on destroying Pakistan, just look at your Geo TV and look at what the Pakistan Army is doing to Pathans and Baluchis, which has resulted in a rebellion in both Baluchistan and NWFP. It is just a matter of time before Pakistan Army wins another Bangladesh in what is remaining of Pakistan.

Good luck. You should not get angry but just look up the facts.

Finally, I see that you have edited Janjua, and than list Amir Khan a boxer as a Janjua, the interesting fact here is that you agree that his ancestry is Rajput, so how do you explain Khan as his last name. This proves my point that Khan is a name that Muslims now in South Asia use regardless of whether they are Pustoun. Please make yourself a registered user rather than using an IP address that is located in Holland.

Rehara1 04:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Khan issue

As an outsider to this argument, I have to add Rehara, this user isn't in Holland, but a troublemaker from Leeds University who wants to claim Pashtun ancestry for all sorts of tribes. His edit to Janjua was vandalism, not a constructive edit. He has been warned many times, but uses sock puppets etc and will not use a set username as this would expose his work. I know a young Sudhun, and he has also enquired with his elders and they have also laughed away the Pashtun theory. Especially in light of th DNA evidencve.

Sadly, he was vandalising the Janjua page also, and for almost a year claimed he had evidence that Tanolis were not Janjua ethnically, yet to this day has not provided any evidence of this. I dont see him providing proof for your page either, so don't hold you breath.

Khan is without doubt simply a name and a title to many south asians. Mughal Babur himself refers to a Janjua tribal lord as "Sangar Khan Janjua", who was a Muslim Indian. He also called a Pathan Niazi Tribal Lord "Langar Khan Niazi" (both in his famous Baburnama (The Baburnama, 2002, W.M Thackston, p377, 271, 276), making no distinction in the name. It is in no way shape or form an exclusive ethnic property (which in itself is ludicrous given this ancient undisputable proof). That argument is therefore nullified immediately. (notice how I gave a referenced citation as evidence for my assertion, yet something he will not do for any his assertions....)

Pashtuns did not bring Islam to Kashmir, it was ofcourse through many different ways, preaching being one of them. To claim this too as a 'Pashtun exclusivity' is again a folly and I dont believe many Pashtuns beyond this user will agree. In fact the Khakha tribe of the lower Jhelum valley were already Muslim before the Afghans completely conquered the valley, as were the Bhambas Sultans and many other tribes. Another misconception nullified I'm afraid.

Hope that helps Rehara. Goodluck.--Raja 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Rehara you say you have nothing against Pakistan then why do you degrade the name of the people of Pakistan by calling them Pakis? Also it is not only indians and pakistanis that they cant tell the difference between in England it is also Kashmiris - they are also called 'pakis' you contradict yourself. would you like it if i said Kuntmiri?

---

Correction

Sudhnoti is no longer a part of the Poonch District. Azad Kashmir is split into 8 districts:- Poonch, Sudhnoti, Bhimber, Muzzafarabad, Bagh, Mirpur, Kotli, and Neelam.

---

Disputed Tag

I have been contacted by a user requesting that the disputes on then article be dealt with.

For now the disputed tag has been added, please discuss each issue collectively, reach common consensus of approval which is more factual rather than opinionated, then add to the article.

The tag can be removed after this has been done.--Raja 16:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Geneology

I dont know why someone keeps on claiming the descent from Pathans, maybe both views can be placed on the site. However please dont erase the items already there. A lot of research was done by Col. Khalil which is referenced in the article. Including the DNA reseaarach which is tagged.

trueblood 04:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend adding your point re: non Pashtun origin into the article as an alternative origin theory as well as citing the others as theories too.

I would further recommend that you definitely add the citations and evidential proof to your claim as it will certainly appear more valid than any other opinions which may not be able to stand to evidential scrutiny.--Raja 11:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference tags

How do you add the citations as the references are listed below in the araticle under references ? I will make sure that both points of view are in this article

Thanks

trueblood 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given an example where I've just typed the reference for the citation of the Hindu ancestry part under geneology. I have already set out the later reference part for you (i.e. where it will automatically show as a reference.) All you have to do is e.g. write your point/assertion then at the end of it type < ref > (but without the spaces)

add your reference here, including the page number, author, year of publish etc,

then type < / Ref > at the end of it. Remember to type this without the spaces in between as it wont work properly without the spaces removed. I have typed it this way as I cant show you otherwise.'

Type in < ref > at the beginning of your reference and at the end of it you would type < / Ref >

here is an example:

The Sudhans are a Kashmiri tribe < ref > The name of the book, author, date of copyright and publishing house, page number < / ref >

It is important that you include all the details such as publisher, year of publish and the page number for authenticity reasons, otherwise simply a book name and little else is highly suspect. Especially where a lot of strong claims are made (and counter claims to be expected) i.e. disputes...

Try it and see how far you get.

I would also suggest that the language be more encyclopedic also. Making general assumptions is not allowed on an encyclopedia and the language must remain very very very neutral, whatever the subject may be.--Raja 12:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

to the person who has taken my reference out from the sudhan DO NOT DO IT AGAIN. i have had to create another account because the hindu rajii had confused me with someone else. my name is Ajaz Khan Sadozai from Tahlian, Azad Kashmir we the so-called sudhans are NOT. we are the descendents of Ahmed Shah Abdali Sadozai the first king of Afghanistan and our physical appearance and tribal ways are the same as our pashtun cousins in the NWFP(pakhtunkwa) and Afghanistan. To Rehari , if you are the same idiot who claims he once worked on Wall street and now owns a air freight business i told you then that we are not related to the hindu's and sikh's and the term sudhan has replaced our original tribal name Sadozai because we had lived in Kashmir and the local's have mispronouneced our tribal name because it sounds similar to sudhan (Sadozai- sudhan, seee Idiot). if you want to be related to the hindu's then that is your problem. the so called expert 'Dr' Khalil has been asked to provide DNA evidence for this preposterous claim that we are descendents of Hindu brahnmins. NEVER in my time have i come across any member of the Sadozai in Azad Kashmir EVER to have said we are descendents of Hindu's. i would like for you rawalakoti Rehari to utter such B**s*t in front of any member of the Sadozai tribe in Azad Kashmir and see what would happen.

Sardar Ibrahim Khan was also given Dastarbadi by members of the Sadozai tribe in Peshawar , an act that is NOT BESTOWED ON descendents of Hindu's.(Dastarbandi is the tying of the lunghi (turban) as a mark of leadership (Tribal Malik))

My grandfather along with other members of my extended family fought alongside and were friends with Sardar Ibrahim Khan along with Khan Mohamed Khan (Khan of MANG).

Even the descendents of the hindu's , the Raja's of Sarsawa and Sain Saa in Azad Kahmir have never said the sudhans are descendents of the Hindu brahmins and they claim they are the descendents of the Rajputs.

Dr Khalil provide the DNA evidence and the names and areas were the DNA samples were taken so if this claim of yours is true after we have verifed then i can remove my lunghi and take off the Sadozai from my name and stop travelling amongst the Sadozai's of Bajaur Agency and Balauchistan.

It is ironic that the pashtun ANP party and Sadzoai tribe from Bajaur and Balauchistan accepts us as their own people yet it is a hindu rajii and some ill-informed idiot from Rawalakot who seems to be hell bent on saying stuff without evidence about brahmins.

To Imran Jadoon,

Wrore Pahtun Tora Jadoon, stere mashe, ja-ma Ajaz Khan Sadozai au ma kabeelah Sadozai Afghanistan ta raghle, da sadzoai ilakha Pallandri, Tahlian , mang toll Sadozai alta wose. Da pakhtun party ANP ilann shuru-kri da Sadozai Azad Kashmir au Pakhtun Pakhtunkwa yoh kabeelah de.

This man just wont give up. He keeps on destroying the site. If he has any citations he can use them, but he just makes up these unverified claims. This is rediculous.

Rehara1 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i have given you my name, my ancestral place in Azad Kashmir and my email. What do you want ?

If you are the same rawalakoti who i last emailed in 2000 and who claimed to be Sadozai from rawalkot and who had relatives in the UK then you will know who i am and i am not Mumtaz which i think you know already.

One of my cousins directed me to this site and i recognised the trend and who you are.

What i want from you is where you are from , what your father's name is, as you claim to know the late Sardar Ibrahim Khan as does your father. i also happen to know Sardar Ibrahim Khan's son Khalid Ibrahim so maybe we can clear up the fact with him , that the late Sardar Ibrahim Khan did not get Dastarbandi from the Sadozai tribal maliks in peshawar and whether he as the son of the freedom fighter and first president of libearted Azad Kashmir considers himself or his late father considered himself as a descendent of Hindu Brahmins or from the Sadozai pashtun tribe that conquered Kashmir in the 1700's.

This will also clear up the fact to who you REALLY are. As you claim that you are a Sadzoai.sudhan from Rawalakot this will verify that claim.

As for the citations and and unverified claims that you charge against me, maybe you need English lessons as i have cited events and places and people. A member of the Sadozai tribe in Notttingham, UK is collating all data and information in a book and he will be contacted soon to see when this book will be published. Also this summer we will be visisting this Dr Khalil in Lahore or rawalkot to verify his claim and who he is.

to:

Sadozai Khan

Your assertion of bieing Pustoon does not change the fact that prior to muslims showing up in Afghanistan the Pustoons were Hindoos. I guess you must think that all of Afghanistan was muslim and the history prior to muslims did not exist. Just read the history of Afghanistan. Also I guess the statues of Bamin that the Taliban destroyed were just imaginary. So how do you explain where the pathans came from. If Sudhans are pathans than how do you explain that the Sudhans have a 90% literacy rate while the Pathans have a literacy rate of less than 20% according to United Nations Statistics. If you want to be a Pathan move to NWFP

Rehara1 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What stupidity..... maybe you are the same idiot who likes to think that all black people are genetically less intelligent than white people. literacy has everything to do with demographics,opportunity and governmental policies , quality of and access to educational facilities and not with ethnicity. In peshawar and bigger cities such as Kohat, Bannu, Mardan, Swabi the literacy rate is high yet in the villages it is low due to lack of government spending and investment in Education. In Rawalakot and Pallandri with large goverment Degree colleges and Cadet colleges the literacy rate is high yet in surrounding villages it is low due to less investment. See a pattern emerging ?

The pashtuns ancestary is in dispute as some say they are one of the last tribes of israel and others say they are descendents of Qais, whichever is correct they ceratinly are not descendents of Hindu's. By the same logic in a 100 yrs time when Americans find a Hindu temple iunder the rocks in Nevada 'Intellectuals' like you will claim that the Americans were descendents from Hindu's , nice one sherlock.

As for moving to the NWFP i spend my holidays there amongst my tribal kinsmen in Bajaur, Peshawar as well as Tahlian , Pallandri , Panjera in AK. When you have furnished the info about where you come then we shall see what you grandfather was doing when mine together with Sardar Ibrahim , Colonel Naqi et al was fighting against Hindu rule alongside our Pashtun Kinsmen Afrdi, Shinwari, Mehsud's, Waziri's amongst other Pashtun tibals. Don't ever tell me to go from one place to another, my ancestors , the Sadozai's,liberated Azad Kashmir from Hindu rule while your ilk were hiding in the forests.

I do not belive for 1 minute that you a member of the Sadozai tribe and once you background is asertained it will all be clear.You have my email so lets see. User:khan_sadozai2

Sock puppetry

You are ofcourse Mumtaz and still playing sock puppets. Your practices are well known for e.g.

See above 'Raja' , you know my email address , my name and where my ancestors are from so stop 'bleeting' about Mumtaz.

a) I have not under any circumstances at all made any assertions whatsoever about this tribe.

"YES you have. You have purposely removed posts my myself and Mumtaz and soon other members of the wider Sadozai tribe in the UK and Pakistan who will be notified about this entry to hide the evidence." - sock puppet

Prove it. I challenge you to provide evidence of where I have removed a shred of evidence from this talk page. Call whoever of the Sadozais you want. If they are as civil as the other users here, they may see your uncivil behaviour and probably give you the advice to stop misrepresenting them.

b) I have provided help to mediate the dispute, and also requested the user who has a contrary view to you to provide proof of his assertions and also include your theory of origin also, so as to appear balanced.

"Who has asked you to mediate this. We are members of the Sadozai tribe and you claim to be an expert and cite 'experts' that claim that the Sadozai are descendents of hindu's. NOT ONE member of the Sadozai ever has claimed that they are have any hindu ancestory. If they have then they would have called themselves Raja xxx , just like the Rajput's of Sarsawa, sain saa in Azad Kashmir,isn't --Raja 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)that right 'RAJA'."-sock puppet

Trueblood has asked me. I again challenge you to provide me proof of where I have claimed to be an expert on this tribe, anywhere on wikipedia. You clearly have no basis for this claim.

c) All users have been requested to provide help, including yourself. Abuse aside, what proof can you bring to the table? If you have, then please provide it and I promise it will be incorporated into the article.

"i have cited examples names and places, which you have removed. Olaf Caroes book 'The Pathans' with chapter of the Sadozai's of interest. Oral tradition handed down from the Sadozai's is of the descendent's of Ahmed Shah Baba. The Sadozai tribe from the Kandahar area of Afghanistan, Chamarkhand Tehsil of Bajaur Agency and Sadozai Killi and Sadozai Khel areas of Baluchistan have confirmed that they accept that the Sadozai's of Azad Kashmir are their kinsmen. Maybe you need to travel there to confirm this or even contact the ANP leadership to confirm this, but i am sure that this does not fit in with your agenda."- sock puppet

Citations aren't names of places. Citations from reputable sources such as books has been requested. (Note this has also been requested from the other users also, and I can prove this, so again your allegation is incorrect.) I have no agenda other than to try and resolve this dispute, which is proving difficult with your incivility.

d) It is strange that if ALL Sudhuns are the descendants of such an illustrious king, then why are so many professing to be Hindu. If there exists proof (according to above users) that the Sikhs had persecuted the Sudhuns, then how can the sons of Ahmad Shah Abdali stay not only in Kashmir, but also raise an entire generation of tribal descendants and systematically abused? If you have a Shajra (Family tree) please provide it.

"Who is professing this ? Ask their names and where they originate from and send me an email and we shall see who ALL these Sudhans are.The family tree ai provided in a book 'tehreek sudhan kabeelah' which i iwll get the author and send me email.NOT ONCE was any mention made in the history of the Sadozai kabeelah of hindu ancestory."

Why should they send you private emails when the subject is being here in the open? That is suspicious behaviour I am afraid of an agenda....

But the book you cite, if you can provide evidence from it, i.e. isbn numbers for it's authenticity, page numbers, publication house etc, then by all means, incorporate this into the article for all to see and I will support it's contribution. None of the users thus far have spoken against adding your work. It is you, trying to censor theres.

e) My Hindu faith or not, means absolutely nothing to the validiy of your claims. Please refrain from your prejudicial references.

This is an encyclopedia and hence all disputes should be balanced and displayed, for the reader and interested parties see, fairly and derive their own judgement from it.

You have been warned Mumtaz for your incivility and poor language. Should this continue, you will be banned yet again.

Try being constructive, for the sake of the God you mujst follow, and try to be polite and work with these editors instead of being abusive and uncivil.

"i only beleive in 1 god, ALLAH, not the many like you, and who do you think you are banning me. i will be contact the wikipedia people and confirming ny name and info including personnel details so they can verfiy my identity. I suggest you also do the same so i know who you are."

How sad then that you just abused what Allah Subhana wa't'ala himself decrees to all Muslims, that to malign anothers faith is a poor act against your own (due to the provocation to the offended party to retaliate against yours.) Whether I am Hindu or Muslim, is no business of yours. My faith is not in dispute here. But the article is. So instead of arguing, get on with fixing the article or just go away. You have been advised very clearly.--Raja 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

Can I reqeust all users (even Sadozai Khan) to add a line each about what they believe the dispute is each? We will all then gain consensus and move this forward the appropriate way.

I stress, that although Sadozai Khan is being uncivil and abusive, his disputes are to be noted and addressed as neutrally as any other user. If he abuses this professional trust, then it will be dealt with by wikipedia etc.

Each user please.--Raja 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Trueblood 786

I think the dispute is that Sadozai believes that Sudhans are pathans. I added that and even gave the reference. I have no problem putting all sides and I think I did that.

The problem I have is that in another section he made some personal remarks about Jats and Rajas in reference to Qayum Khan. This is uncalled for and not appropriate for this article. In this article only facts should be included

trueblood 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Trueblood 786. Can I politely request what evidence you have to suggest the alternative opinion of Brahmin origin?

To summarise your side, you believe the origin dispute is the main dispute.

Other users also please provide your case in a brief statement please.--Raja 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the references 2,3 and 4. Another think just do a yahoo search on Sudhan and you will get hundreds of people with the name sudhan in India all are hindus and they all belong to the the Sudhan tribe

trueblood 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the references, I must clarify that the name and author is not going to be enough. Can you cite the page number for the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and NWFP by Ibbetson? I have this book and if you provide me the page number, I will search the rest of th info and input it to completion for you.

I must also state that I have just cited a source which states that the Sudhan tribe is descended from Pathans, Kashmir in Comparative Perspective: Democracy and Violent Seperatism in India by Sten Widmalm, (2002, Sted Widmalm, p34, ISBN 0-7007-1578-9)) which states, "According to Lamb, Poonch at the time of partition was populated mainly by Sudhans descended from Pathans of Afghanistan" .

This clearly a proper citation as the rest in this article should be. Assertions must be fully citable and referenced in this way to counter any allegation, because ultimately, this is a neutral source encyclopedia.

Can I ask you again Trueblood to provide me the page number of the Tribes and Castes book, and I will provide the same info clarified for you? I have this book and cant find the Sudhan mention in it in the index (albeit the index of this book is incredibly poor).--Raja 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A citation by someone in America who claims that Sudhans are pathans means not much to people in Kashmir. It would be like stating that a person in Mecca would tell catholics if they are christians ?

The citations in India and Pakistan from old books do not contain ISBN. That is not used there,, so I will try to get the ones from India and Pakistan. I for example have the book written by Ibrahim Khan who was the first President of Azad Kashmir, in this book he claims that Sudhans are Pathans, but does not cite any evidence. In the book you cited, where is the evidence for the assertion. It cannot be just because someone said so.

The evidence has to be clear and historically proven. The citations that I have in the reference are clear and are verifiable. The myth of Sudhans being Pathans is just that a myth made by the English. If a lie is repeated enough times it turns to the truth, so here we have a myth that is being repeated again and again by the English and now by this one person without any evidence.

trueblood 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please dont get me wrong, but I don't think you realise what a citation is. It is simply a source that quotes something. That is it. Regarding the proof, the wikipedia is not a place to prove anything, it is simply an encyclopedia which states information from as many sources as neutrally as possible, to leave the reader to derive their own opinion.

Regarding old books, even if they have no ISBN, citation pages etc must be included, and if you have the text, you can even show the page if the users query it. What you must remember is, that all sides must be given equality in stating their case. If you become obstructive, then what will happen to your article? It's an interesting article, and in the interest of your ancestral heritage, I would recommend to think of it's open view rather than making it full of disputes.

You dont have to agree with this citation, but it is none the less that more than one person believes Sudhans may be Pathans (again, this is not my opinion, just a citation).

You asked me to mediate. I have tried my best to offer you my advice on wiki ethics and practices. If you feel that I am no longer required and you can now take care of the article yourself, then I will graciously bow out and leave you guys to it. It's your call.--Raja 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Raja:

I understand what a citation is. And I agree with you that both sides be listed. I am just saying that the ISBN does not exist in Pakistan. Also in reference to your request about the book you have, (Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and NWFP by Ibbetson) please look under the "Main heading of Brahmans of Khatris, Sudan is shown as one of hte 12 tribes in Hazara during Vedic age. Sodhan is described as a Rajput tribe. Sud raceis settled in East Punjab." This is all I have, I got this from Col. Khalil who cited these. If you have the book you can help by looking this section up and making the proper citation.

The term Sudhan is derived from Sogdiana. Which was an iranian province. Irannin tribes were present in Punjab & Sammercand. "Alexander the Great by Robin Lane.

In any case, I am very glad that you are mediating this. Thanks for your patiance and help. Finally, just for kicks, why is it that muslims in South Asia somehow believe that Pathans existence on the planet came as Muslims. Obviusly before Islam they were something else.

trueblood 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, what this discussion has shown to date is that there is a lot of prejudice in Pakistan. For example there was a city in Baluchistan which was named Hidubagh, this name was there for hundreds of years. But in the 70's they made the city muslim and changed the name to Muslimbagh. They just dont want to belive that they were Hindu converts which is a fact. Appaarently during Zia's time in Pakistan the books were changed to show that all muslims somehow immigrated to India from Central Asia etc. Which is nothing but a myth to make Pakistan a separate nation than India.

The only way to separate truth from fiction is through research, and as I had stated a simple google search on the name sudhan shows hundreds of sudhans in India.

There are a lot of Sudhan in Poonch in Indian Kashmir and they are Hindu as well as muslim. In fact in New York there is a Kashmiri Hindu Sudhan from Poonch. We met him ourself and he belongs to the same tribe

trueblood 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Thanks for your kind words Trueblood.

With regards to your query of prejudice, it exists, but in my experience, it's in all sides. I have encountered so many extremists from India on wiki that it would discourage anyone from working here. But I remained here to contribute, healthily, with the firm belief there are people like me across the border who do not harbour ill will to me or others and are neutral and honourable. I am glad to say that there are many decent Indian wikipedians here too. Same as with other countries. You have your extremists and also some great wikipedians. I have come across some extremists from NWFP, and some nice people from there also. Don't try and understand them or get angry, just move on and let them stay hating.

I'd leave this discussion here, as again, this is not relevant to the progression of this article (and will become a talk page for troublemakers to come on to and contribute their nonsense.

Right, thanks also for your reference mention from Ibbetson's book, I will search this and apply the appropriate citation for you.

With regards to ISBN's, dont worry, newer books do have them. The old books without them, you just have to mention the page numbers, year of publish and the publishing house name (they will definitely include that much on it). So that should be ok. I recommend this practice, as it stops the work being questioned for authenticity etc.

I dont know how relevant you may find this, but there are tribes with Indian descent, who have resided in NWFP regions so long, become so Afghanised that some of them now do not consider themselves Indian at all. I would be the first to confirm that with centuries of local marriage with the local populace, the amount of Indian blood remaining in them would be very very negligibly low. But their origin would be the same despite that. The Tanoli tribe is a perfect example of this. They are very 'pashtunised in every social respect. They even resemble Pashtuns to some extent. But they known to not to be Pashtuns and there is citable proof for this. May be the same has occurred with some Sudhuns? Either way, if the mention/citation is there of Afghan descent, or Brahmin, it must be incorporated to give a broader picture to the tribe.

My whole point is this. India is an ancient country which has absorbed a lot of tribes from the Aryans to Mughals to Turks, who all at the end said they were indian. In NWFP which was part of India, the people were obviusly Indian prior to 1947. And the father of the pathans, Mr. Khan was himself called the Frontier Gandhi, he did not want to be part of Pakistan.

in any case I agree both sides should be included.

trueblood 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's get some more inputs from users about their sides and let's move this article forward :-) --Raja 10:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the vandal Mumtaz hasn't damaged the article in a while. I'd go ahead and continue your work Trueblood, unhindered and with zest.--Raja 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Local info re Sudhun

I have got in touch with some of the elders and their contacts in Rawalpindi, Kahuta who know Sudhans very well from there.

I can now see your frustration. All the elders were unanimous that the Sudhuns, althoguh quite a respectable and military tribe also, are definitely not Pathan at all, neither have they heard of such an assertion has been made by them. They say that the Sudhan titles are Sardar, whilst some very remotely also call themselves Raja and claim a Rajput ancestry (consist with your claims re Glossary of Tribes etc)

Another point here is a very interesting one also. Apparently Sudhans are well established near them in Rawalpindi and hold some decent land. This would be very strange for them to be this well established in such a short period within the Sadozai conquer of the area and the subsequent Sikh empire ovethrow. Logistically and plausibility would be against the Pathan origin point. The Sudhans of Rawalpindi have extensive relations with Kashmir which would make sense that they are one and the same tribe as we are discussing here.

I have the Rawalpindi Gazzetteer with me and I will check it up for you for any references to do with your tribe in there.

In the meantime, keep up the work.--Raja 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess the vandal just cant stop.

trueblood 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your right.....--Raja 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll survive the shock Ajaz Khan (from Pallandri/UK) when your own DNA proves that the Pathans you've been trying so desperately to claim kinship with have no relation to you.

I'm not Rehara1, who you've been arguing with, although I've read his submissions and respect his opinions. I'm the person you discussed these same ill-informed views with on another website in 2001. A cousin of mine, the late Col. Khalil's son, alerted me to your insults on this page. I can see that nothing has changed.

Unlike you Ajaz Khan, I do not need to have an false association with Pathans to legitimize my existence. You seem so eager to prove that we arent original Sudhans if we question Pathan heritage. I am definitely a proud Sudhan. You can look me up in the book "Tehreek Sudhan Kabeelah". My father's name is Aziz Khan s/o Musahib Khan s/o Dilawar Khan s/o Fateh Sher Khan s/o Lal Khan s/o Paar Khan, hence we are the Paaraal family, Sudhan tribe, Rehara, Poonch. Paar Khan had two brothers, Jamal Khan and Khan Mohammed Khan, whose descendents are Jamalals and Khanwals, the other two major Sudhan families in Rehara. I know my roots this far back, but would like to know where we as Sudhans as a tribe came from pre-1800.

I do not think Sudhans are the same as Sadozai. There is no credible explanation for Sudhans in Azad Kashmir to have a larger population than the Sadozai in NWFP and Afghanistan. It would defy logic to believe that the remnants of Ahmed Shah Abdali's army left in Kashmir could multiply faster than the "original" Sadozai population in NWFP and Afghanistan. I've heard the saying that Ahmed Shah gave Kashmir to his "maasehrs" (cousins), who are supposedly todays Sudhans. Again, how could these few people 200 years ago have grown to a population of over 1 million and dwarfed the size of the original tribe in NWFP that supposedly spawned them? Consider the following factors:

1. Large families are common to both Sudhans and Pathans, so we did not grow faster by reproducing more.

2. Given the small distance, the relatively similar climate and geography, and similar exposure to disease between NWFP, Afghanistan, and Poonch, our mortality rate was not lower than the Sadozai.

So how did our population grow to more than double the Sadozai?

Furthermore, I fail to understand how a population the size of the Sudhans, living within 100 miles of the Pashto speaking belt of Pakistan, can completely lose the Pashto language in a span of 200 years.

One possibility is that we are not Sadozai at all and in fact originally Indo-Aryans, Russians, or Central Asians. This would help explain why there are other groups with the last name Sudhan in India today.

A Sudhan in the U.S. recently had DNA testing done, which showed he had ancestry in Southern Russia and Ukraine. Considering that other groups in Northern India have European Aryan roots, this strengthens the argument that we may share the same origins. Pathans are known to have roots in Southern Iran, so any relation to them can be ruled out.

In light of this, Ajaz Khan, I suggest that the next time you're in the company of your Pathan friends in NWFP, take a sample of the semen you'll inevitably find on your back and have it tested, comparing the DNA to your own. You'll find that there is no match. I'm not a crude person, but feel that Ajaz Khan deserves a suitable response to the insults he initiated.

Shehzad Khan, Salt Lake City, USA/Rehara, AK

Dear Pandit Shehzad 'Khan' I think you've proved the point being made in these pages. May be the non-Pashtoon sudhuns may be anti-Passhtoon sudhuns may have been serviced by Sadozai Sudhuns from rear thus making them honorary Sadozais. Take it in the back if you and be grateful to Pathans for making you Azad.

In that case you better read this article then. Before disrespecting another people like you have done, how about reading this about your own country's re awakening homosexual culture?[2] Somehow now, it makes sense how you made the last comment....

Very thoughtful analysis, I would only add that the literacy rate in villages in AK is still about 90% therefore the statement that in Peshawar the literacy is higher than in villages in NWFP does not stand. The overall literacy rate in AK is 95% while in all of NWFP the literacy rateis only 30% while it is negligible for women. It is sad, but maybe the Pathans can start learning how to read rather than only trying to kill people and make tall claims.

One comment I have to make, although this Pashtun theorist user is gone (for now) it does bring to light how much is truly unknown from texts of this tribe, yet known quite well through fame of this tribe. The Kahuta and Matore Janjua Rajputs know of the Sudhans quite well and have called them a respectable and brave tribe (trust me, it's a big thing if a Matore Janjua says that about another tribe....) I think it would be wise if someone were to re do this article all over and remove any theories that have no proof or citations etc. That way, any theorists would have to prove them first.

I have to also clear up, that the proof through DNA testing that shows the Sudhan mentioned to be related to Aryans, would pretty much be the same for Pasthuns who are very much Aryan descent also.

It would be best if a Sudhan brother could take the initiative and clean this article up and bring it up to scratch? I've found some references re the Sudh Rajput theory also, as well as their contribution towards rebelling against the Sikh Empire also. --Raja 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the vandal is back

---

STOP this bickering.
This is starting to get boring! Let's set the record straight... our ancestors came from an area now known as Afghanistan.
Every Sudhan I've come across seems to agree with this hypothesis.
I'll stick to this theory until some form of hard evidence comes to light that proves otherwise.
I've even heard that we are descendants from the Bani Israel tribe... who knows?

T. Khan
Clan name "Kumbiaal"
London, U.K./Pachoot, Poonch A.K.

---

Rebellion agaisnt Pak Army.

The vandal wants to deny this truth. In fact everyone knows that Pakistan is run by sociopath crooks like the generals under whom PIA cannot fly its plains, poor cant afford food the whole place is a big mess. Sudhans had known this back in the 50's that you dont trust a bunch of degenerate army men to run anything

trueblood 20:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect Trueblood, whatever the reasons of the vandal are, you have just put up some very strong opinions which have no place here in a serious encyclopedia. Whether they are crooks or saints, there is no way you can prove that Sudhuns knew this is the 50's or at any point, and there is no referenced statements made to this effect to incorporate them into the article. In fact, it can even be argues that had the army been that awful, then Sudhuns wouldn't have sought employment in it.

I think what you need to do is focus on what is available as referenced info, that can most certainly be incorporated into the article, regardless of what the foolish vandal believes and does. Keep up your efforts, and don't let this fool wear you down, he isn't worth the letter on the keyboard my friend.--Raja 14:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So trueblood if you are sudhun and they have '90%' literacy rate what the f*** happened to you? you cant even spell 'planes' my little 3 yr old sister can spell that f***** idiot

PS Pathans ARE THE BEST! Good Pakhtuns are the best ethnic group in the whole of Pakistan. F*** ALL YOU NATIONALISTS

Everyone can see what is happening in Pakistan, just look at the MQM and Pathans, killing each other. About spelling, I am happy for you that you have a genious for a 3 year old sister, that just means that you must be either a teenager or in the 20's. It will take a long time for you to gain experience in life before you can use intelligence in arguments rather than gutter languange.

trueblood 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Offensive language

I read the history on this page and apparently someone is angry about using the word Paki. It is just a short for Pakistani, In the US it is used as a short. I have no idea what they use it for in England and could care less. In fact President Bush used the same word to refer to Pakistan during his press conference. So just get over it. If you dont want to be called a Paki than say so

trueblood 20:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

trueblood 20:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trueblood, President Bush is an absolute twat, he cant even pronounce English words properly, let alone Pakistani. He used it in a derogatory way off the microphone, but didnt realise the mic was on.... I would leave him out of this argument. The fact is that the word has been recognised as a deformatory/derogatory word for Pakistanis, and does indeed cause some people offence. There doesn't need to be a debate over this, it's quite obvious is caused.

I would request that the word not be used here for arguments sake. Instead of arguing here, it has become quite obvious by now that Sudhans have nothing to do with Pathans (and I dont know why these pathetic Pathan originists keep coming here just to get abused? If a community wants nothing to do with you, then take a hint dude.)

Can we improve the article more somewhat? I have found references of Sudhs (if they are accepted as the same people as Sudhans) being even mentioned in the Mahabharata epic too. This is another avenue of research I believe.--Raja 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE AND STOP TRYING TO MAKE TANAWALIS LINK WITH JANJUAS. YOU HAVE TRIED TO USE VARIOUS METHODS AND NEW WORDS INCLUDING TANOLIS, TANAWALIS, TANWAL ETC. TO CREATE 'HISTORIES' WITHOUT PROOF. THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT MOST OF THE SUDHUNS CONSIDER THEMSELVES OF PASHTUN BACKGROUND WHEREAS NONE OF THE TANAWALIS BUY YOUR SUGGESTIONS.

Again, you have been found out you two penny sock puppet Mumtaz Ahmed. If you had the guts, then challenge ANY Sudhun face to face about his ancestry and you would get your answer. Our Rawalpindi Sudhun Sardaars or our Jhelum/Rawalpindi Janjua Rajas would cut up any Tanawali within seconds for trying to make him a mixed mongrel like you (it was you who suggested in your own article that your tribe is mixed between Turks, Mongols, Pashtuns etc etc etc, there is a name for people like you who have no idea who your father is lol) You people should focus on trying to find out who your original father was, (turk, Mongol, Pathan or what?) rather than bother another community who DOESNT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

TrueBlood, Youy see George Bush as a role model? Shows how intelligent ..If i was to say Kuntmiri how would that mek u feel? and then if i was to say i couldnt care less if u find it offensive or note what would that make you think? and it maybe shorter than saying pakistani but that dont me it right does it u t***

First of all I dont understand the slang that you are using. However, in the United States, the word Paki does not have any bad connotation. However, now I understand that in Britain it accompases everyone from South Asia not just Pakistanis.

So if I hurt your feelings I would like to apologize, but you should understand that it means nothing in the United States, as here the legal description of White/Caucasion specifically includes Pakistanis, Iranians etc.

trueblood 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

---

STOP this bickering.
This is starting to get boring! Let's set the record straight... our ancestors came from an area now known as Afghanistan.
Every Sudhan I've come across seems to agree with this hypothesis.
I'll stick to this theory until some form of hard evidence comes to light that proves otherwise.
I've even heard that we are descendants from the Bani Israel tribe... who knows?

T. Khan
Clan name "Kumbiaal"
London, U.K./Pachoot, Poonch A.K.

---

If you think you are from Afghanistan good for you.

trueblood 04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep faith Trueblood, it's the same sock puppet user from Leeds in the UK who thinks he's not being watched. Gutless frustration from a gutless man I guess. Not a good representative of his tribe I must say ;-)--Raja 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sudhan Hindus

I visited this page after some time and was not surprised to find that all references to Sudhan/Sudan relating to Hinduism or Hindus has been removed. Well its nothing exceptional on wikipedia except that it takes away from both Hindu/Sikhs and Muslims Punjabis with common backgrounds the chance to exchange lost pieces in their clan history .A kind of rule of the majority prevails....with the majority making every effort to wipe the slate clean of the other from the article and this happens on both types of pages where the majority are Hindu or Muslim . What purpose does it serve?? . There are Hindu Sudhans livings in India .A very handsome people and doing exceptionally well when I saw pictures of Sudhans on this page I was somewhat amazed at the similarity of the features. Well this is not good enough information for the main article ...but there was information on this article, which has been removed. Its sad .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please dont on here and bandy about fake condolensces. I am one of the people who fought on here to keep the Hindu ancestry of many clans against bigots. And likewise I have also encountered your bigotry where you try to Hinduise the roots of many non Hindu back ground clans. THAT is wat is sad. I will do my best to keep the truth out there, even if it doesnt please certain bigots on each side. Respecting a tribes anctral claim and balancing it with well thought out neutral knowledge is positive. Trying to lie is not.;;

Peace--Raja (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Punjabi Tribe

If sudhans were a punjabi tribe, than they would be sucking up to the evil Pakitani Army, which the punjabis have used to subjugate all the muslim in Pakistan. since Sudhans have revolted against the Punjabi Army, they are obviously not Punjabis.

trueblood (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sudhans are not Kashmiris. They are Punjabis, or Pathans or Paharis. But not Kashmiris because they don't speak Kashmiri. It's as simple as that. If you don't speak Kashmiri, you're an outsider, you're a non-Kashmiri, as Lee from the Apprentice would say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.75.208 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Note related to my edit today in the article of today's date.
Sudan or Sudhan is a well known clan name among Hindus as well as Sikhs .
For example see this listing from the telephone directory of BSNL a telephone operator .[3]
Then select Sudan for Jammu or Udhampur or Rajauri . Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, can we be mindful that the article os about Sudhans, regardless of cultural bias, if there are Hindu or Sikh Sundhan counterparts, they MUST be included as mentions in this article. Let's keep a broad picture of this tribe/article --~Raja~ (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandal deletions of cited content by anonymous ip 24.110.147.192

Cited content regarding Sudhans being Mohyal has been vandal deleted by user 24.110.147.192. This user is a habitual vandal .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I think we need more established evidence beyond an "ONLINE PHONE DIRECTORY" which in NO WAY proves as a citation the faith of a phone payer?! I have removed the Jewish theory as it is nonsensical and doesn't provide the assertion or any reference of it's origins.

I am also looking forward to cleaning this section up as why is a quote of a Brahmin Mohyal tribe being mentioned here from one source, yet other sources quotes are not here? The Sadozai claim is much more referenced yet those references aren't included. I argued against this last year, that ALL views should be included. Using a quote, is OBVIOUSLY trying to apply visual precedence to one claim over another....--~Raja~ (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added further references of the Sudhans Afghan claims, and also the Sudhan Brahmin possibility, which may loosely be connected. Can the user who keeps putting in whimsical non corroborated or cited info re Jewish theories etc please either provide references or refrain from re adding the info.--~Raja~ (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1