Talk:Kharal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kharal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kharal Foundation of Pakistan[edit]

Kharal tribal lived all over the Pakistan. majority of this tribal live in Punjab. maximum people of this tribal attached from Agriculture. Raisufian (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC) It's right that majority of Kharal family is attached with agricultural due to royal thinking. Now Kharal family taking interest in modern word as well as modern business. ′Rai Shakir Ul Hassan Kharal′[reply]

Hi hassan[edit]

Hi hassan 36.255.45.5 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kharals are Rajputs[edit]

Kharals are Rajput not Jatt they are Jatt in the sense that they are agriculturalists and all agriculturalists in Punjab are called Jatts but as professionally not because of caste. MrHyperForEver (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

You can’t draw your own conclusions that is called wp:NOR we only stick to the sources we have on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the references you are citing are beyond unreliable. See the wp:RS. What the sources say is that some Kharral identify as Jatts others as Rajputs, you are not allowed to remove refffed material nor are you allowed to spin your own narrative not found in the sources, Thank you. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


There are 7 sources attached with the declaration that Kharals are Jatts in first paragraph. I didn't found a single sentence saying Kharals are Jatts.

source 1 : can't access the full article source 2 : doesn't say Kharals are Jatts source 3 : doesn't say Kharals are Jatts, says Mirza was epitome of Jat values but as you know Jatts are all those who are agriculturalists, no direct saying that Kharals are Jatts. source 4 : didn't said Kharals are Jatt source 5 : not even Kharal word used. source 6 : the article is not even about kharals or any of Punjab castes source 7: can't access full article meaning no evidence available.

Please recheck all things and then talk to me with your so called reliable sources. 

MrHyperForEver (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrHyperForEver:Look you can keep deleting refs, we can only assume good faith so many times. And you also cannot insert your POV or peersonal expertise on the Kharals into the article you have to stick strictly to the sources. If one source identifies a Punjabi tribe as Jat while the other as Rajput. We as a general rule on Wikipedia write Jat and Rajput. You keep saying some sources say they are Jat but they are actually not. You cannot say that without a proper reference. And for instance even if you had a reference to prove this you would say: 'X author is of the opinion that the term Jat is a general term and they are actually Just Rajputs'. You would still absolutely not remove Jat from the lead. However, to this topic the dual Jat/Rajput tribes has been a discussion in academic circles for a while now and there is no consensus as to why certain tribes claim to be both. Some argue that aborignal tribes fabricate Rajput ancestory, some say more dominant tribes claim Rajput ancestory, some say it is related to geography, and some consider Jats to be an elactic socail grouping agricultuaral tribes with no ethnic basis....
Secondly almost all of the sources you have quoted in your most recent edit cannot even be used on wikipedia. Assuming good faith and since you are a new user, I will go through each of the ones that I am going to remove:
1. British era colonial sources are almost never cited when dealing with Punjabi tribes by the concensus of senior editors unless with a modern academic source backing the colonial one, You cited: Report on the Revised Settlement of the Jhang District of the Punjab, Notes on the Pathans of the Pathan Recruiting District, Scientific Memoirs by Officers of the Medical and Sanitary Departments..., Panjab Castes, A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab..... Indian census all of these will be removed.
2. You cited 2 works of Caste based pseudo Historians: Origins and History of Jats... and The Rajputs: History, Clans, Culture, and Nobility these are also by concensus not to be cited.
3. Please add the page # for the sources you cite, Son Preference: Sex Selection, Gender and Culture in South Asia is an excellent source please add the page number as soon as you have some time.
4. The sahiwal Municipal corporation seems to have copied an older wikipedia version of the Kharal article. And it also calls the Kharals Jats in the same page if you go below.
Thirdly, you absolutely cannot add your interpretations or knowledge of any information without a adequate source. You cannot quote blogspots or other wikis. You cannot also not remove other sources like you were doing before.
Fourthy, I dont know why you are removing their traditionally pastoral references both of which are reliable and largely increase the credibility of the article.
Lastly, even if all of the lead sources did not for instance mention the Kharals are jats the rest of the article contains numerous sources that do. However, all of the lead sources used to mention the Kharals as jats say that kharals are Jats except for one which I will confirm afer this. The Kharals (atleast many) identifying as Jats does not negate your belief of their "Rajputness". Rather we are just following normative procedure and puritanically sticking to the sources. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Nawabmalhi I gave proper sourcing of British respected Historians and books of undeniable factuality while you are giving sources which are not even about Kharals. Please stop this vandalism. I gave 10 sources for Kharals being Rajputs which all directly said that. MrHyperForEver (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources I have attached to prove Kharals as Rajputs. Check how many are modern and how many are not.

source 8 is modern source 9 is modern source 10 is modern source 11 is modern source 12 is a cencus report of 1911. source 13 is about all Punjabi casts source 14 is a scientific report on Indians differentiating between how health and body features change and vary in different castes and areas. source 15 is a British report on Jhang district people. source 16 is the whole gazeeter of Punjab source 17 is modern source 18 is modern (1960s) source 19 is modern source 20 is the writing of H.A Rose whose Important work is undeniably a treasure for us.

Of the 14 sources mentioned with Kharals origin as Rajputs 7 are modern while 7 are past historical texts of British. So how could you say that there is no support of British colonial records with Modern writings.

I say stop this vandalism and now don't undo my changes I have added comment of H.A Rose on Kharals. Its importance is undeniable, its reliability is unrejectable.

please stop this vandalism by removing sourcese I add, I have not removed any of yours sources which are even not about tribal information. 

MrHyperForEver (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not new I have a new user for a specific reason. MrHyperForEver (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrHyperForEver: If you are an old user (which is problematic as that means you are using a sock) it should mean that you know better than to add British colonial era sources which has been a consensus for Multiple years now. Even on this page, Senior editors(now admin) such as Sitush have removed British colonial sources whenever added. This is the reason why almost none of the articles on Punjabi tribe on Wikipedia have references of the the British Raj sources. Even if I don't remove the British Raj sources or the pseudo-historian citations of yours in 6 months to maybe an year other editors will because we just don't cite them in articles. Also, I am not against you, in fact I had to learn this as well!
As such I am going to have to remove them again, I hope you think critically of what I have said and reread my previous comment. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will not cite British colonial era sources but why did you remove the modern sources such as the books:-

1. Rajputs: History, Clans, Culture and Nobility.(2005)

2.Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D.(2008).

If you have done it by mistake ok but be careful the other time. If you have some difficulty with the upper mentioned sources please tell me before removing them. These sources were found by me after days of work and research and why had written you the Amr Nath Bali writing in the second paragraph it deserves its place in first paragraph as its about their origin.

I am not that old user I have 200+ edits before. MrHyperForEver (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And please try to find some good sources regarding Kharals as Jatts as all of the current sources are either about Mirza Sahiban or they have just discussed it to give example. I think wiki community should have consensus on sourcese which are directly for the mentioned topic or matter. MrHyperForEver (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how to find if wiki community has consensus on something. And I have old British era colonial records mentioned on many other articles/pages. MrHyperForEver (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrHyperForEver:Easiest Consensus meaning is if a senior editor sees the citation of British Raj sources they remove them and that they have discussed the issue on multiple talk pages. If you do see British Raj sources being quoted alone let me know I can remove them or you can do it yourself. I agree half of the sources mentioning them as Jats relate to Mirza Sahiban however that is because that's what the Kharrals are most known for and the references in the introduction are just placeholders that give general summary to hold article in place. Not dissimilar to quoting British sources by other authors for Rajput origin. However, the most direct and reliable source is the one of Iftekhar Ahmed and that also mentions that the Kharrals are Jats and that Rajput origin is fabricated however it doesnt need to be cited in introductory sentence. Now the 2 sources you mentioned I removed, like I said are caste based pseudo-historians, are therefore not reliable and you can check edit history of the various Punjabi tribes the sources have been removed whenever detected. The reason is because they are basically regurgitating what the British sources say but adding a caste angle to them and have no actual qualifications in the subject.
Also the new sources you added are very good in strengthening article however when you are free please add the page numbers as well. Also last thing the origin theories should not be discussed in the introduction. Rather in the body. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say Iftikhar Ahmed's book is more reliable does he give some evidence. none! •(For extra information) Do you know well how can you know, after practical field research (in the nearby area only) you can find that Mirza was a Sahi as elders say but as you move further away from the actual area where all this story played out, the perspective on Mirza starts changing as people call him a Kharal. Most so called reliable sources authors which have mostly not done any field research work have never gone to the real stage area and researched practically. I have myself seen the old ancestral records (in custody of Musalis and kamis) of Kharals of Doanabad and Pindi Isa and have found none information about Mirza and his father. The leader of Doanabad Kharals at the moment of the story being played out was Rai Rahmoo who didn't had any son as Mirza. 

MrHyperForEver (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Users deleting mention of Jats from article[edit]

@Kharal1 Explain why you removed mention of Kharals also being a Jat clan from the article. Kharals being Jats is supported by reliable sources. ThethPunjabi (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Kharals are Rajput by descent, which is supported by many sources.
"By caste, the Kharals are Rajput of the Agni-Kula descent. They link up their genealogy with Karan, a chivalrous character from Ramayana and were converted by Makhdoom Jahanian Shah Shareef." (Kharal and Berkley).
Even though there are sub-clans that moved from the north of Punjab to the south (e.g. Khar) who claim Jat status, that doesn't mean they are Jat by origin, as they 'changed' caste to assimilate. I am a Kharal from Pind Dadan Khan. Kharal1 (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kharal1 Adding mention of Jats to the article does not imply that Kharals originated from Jats, just that many Jats claim to be Kharals today, even if the tribe was originally Rajput. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To quote colonial gazetteers and the like authored by individuals who would never be allowed the position of a clerk back in Britain doesn't help the case.
To the best of my knowledge, it seems that no medieval or premodern source ever describes or identifies the 'Kharals' as 'Rajputs'. In fact, neither Pilu, nor Waris Shah, nor Ganesh Das Wadera, nor any of the administrators and ministers (wazirs) in the Mughal court ever put 'Kharal' and 'Rajput' in the same sentence, HOWEVER, 'Kharal' and 'Jat' do appear in the same sentence on numerous occasions.
Also – an analysis of premodern sources suggests that Jat was NOT the "elastic designator" that modern liberal and Hindutva revisionist historians often misconstrue it to be. The preeminent use of the word Jat is in fact as an ethnocultural/tribal designator in the Mughal provinces of Lahore, Multan, Delhi, and Agra. PanjabiEdmundBurke (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your region - Jhelum, Chakwal, Bhimber, - basically the regions once referred to as "the country of the Gakhars" or the "extensions of Jammu" on the fringes of Punjab seem to have developed a tendency of adopting an identity distinct from the remainder of Punjab during colonial rule. This was actually strategically encouraged by British ethnographers who aimed to drive recruitment from the fringes rather than the centre (the latter being largely pro-Ranjit Singh rule).
The Kharals in discussion here are those of the Rechnau Doab (one example being Toba Tek Singh) - where they are most numerous and historically prominent, almost all other than a few newly-political families in Kamalia identify as Jatt. The people around them also refer to them as "Jaangli Jatt" particular the areas immediately bordering them. PanjabiEdmundBurke (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kharals Rajput or Jat[edit]

i just want to clear there was no kharal rajput even in early contemporary records they were just mentioned as jat and later in timeline they continuosly start using rajput tittle Wikiwala Jat (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous reports that mention Kharals are of Rajput status. It was stated that some of them styled as Jats after moving towards the south. Kharal1 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but how they are related to rajput I am ready to give you source Secretary of Chief Commissioner of Panjab wrote a letter to Government of British India about the Googaira Mutiny and mentioned Rebel tribes Kharal,Fatwana and Kathia are of Jatt lineage.@Kharal1 Wikiwala Jat (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are talking about but there are numerous mentions of Kharals as Rajputs by origin. Confusion might be due that they claim Jat in terms of agricultural profession, not by caste.
20th Century British colonial ethnologist H. A Rose, who writes that the Kharals would appear to be a true Rajput tribe, though a very considerable portion of them are styled Jat. (A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province).
By caste, the Kharals are Rajput of the Agni-Kula descent. They link up their genealogy with Karan, a chivalrous character from Ramayana and were converted by Makhdoom Jahanian Shah Shareef. (Kharal and Berkley).
These are just some and there are much more. This has been discussed in the page.
If a sub-clan of the Bajwa or Gondal tribe (which are Jat by caste) settle in the north Punjab, Pakistan, further claiming Rajput status. Would that make them Rajput? Answer is, no. Kharal1 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why you are providing fake genelogy as per your information kharal are the clan of agnikul descendant of king karna but karna was not considered as kshatriya he is demigod who's father is surya dev and mother was kunti , by the way dhillon also claim descendants from karna even mutiny record considered kharal tribe as jat because rajput is regional tittle adopted by many caste through the process of rajputisation thankyou Wikiwala Jat (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not fake, they are sourced. More sources (even government census) state that Kharal are rajput but some sub-clans adopted Jat title. Kharal1 (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir can you clear a doubt arise for me, in the conflict between britisher and Rai Ahmed kharal they simply mentioned him as jat under mutiny record but through the period of time (near19th century they start calling themselves with rajput tittle what is the reason for it 117.222.224.81 (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zaroor. By caste, we are Rajput but because of some our agricultural traditions, we are referred to as Jat.
F. B. Wace and F. O. Bourne, authors of the Montgomery Gazetteer 1933 edition describe the tribe as follows:
"The Kharrals were Rajputs. Their ancestor was Raja a Karan of Hastinapur. His descendant Bhupa left that place and came to Uch, where he and his son Kharral were converted by Makhdum Jahania Shah. From Uch the Kharrals spread over the country about the Ravi. They appear to have settled first in the Sandal Bar (Lyallpur District), no doubt with a view to having plenty of pasture for their cattle. Ranjit Singh is said to have induced or compelled them to move to villages nearer to the river, possibly with a view to exercising more effective control over them." Kharal1 (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you don't much knowledge about king karna which you are referring rajput are kshatriya and karna was suryaputra demi god dhillon clan who estab and rulled delhi for 4000 years were also considered as jat and they also claim descendants from king karna on the other hand kharal was mentioned as jat in lots of reliable source you need to do more research on topic thank you.@Kharal1 Wikiwala Jat (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about the exact details about this, just talking from those colonial sources and what our elders told us. We do not deny that some of our sub-clans like the Khars hold Jat status in terms of their profession, but we are given the title Rai Kharal (title held by Rajputs). You might be right that alot of tribes who were of Jat status became Rajput, which includes Kharals. Does that mean the Gakhars, Khokhars and Janjuas are Jat who became Rajput later? Kharal1 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bro rajput is regional tittle adopted by dominant tribe from particular area and second thing is khokhar is just am independent tribe which hold jat status ,but I don't know much about of gakkhars or janjua Wikiwala Jat (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiwala Jat This genealogy record (it is colonial) being sourced by Jatland (Jat site) states that Rai Ahmad Khan's lineage is from Punwar, an ancient Rajput clan. What do you think about this?
https://www.jatland.com/home/File:HARose.p497.jpg Kharal1 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this is reliable source aren't you traping inside multipe connection to any random account of genelogy first your confronting kharal are descendants from king karna of hustinapur but now you believe kharal from punwar rajput descents but actually the reality is different because I have proof Secretary of Chief Commissioner of Panjab wrote a letter to Government of British India about the Googaira Mutiny and mentioned Rebel tribes Rai Ahmed khan Kharal are of Jatt lineage. Wikiwala Jat (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you send the sources, thanks. Kharal1 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete infobox? If you don't mind me asking, what is your zaat and qabila/biradari? Thanks. Kharal1 (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am bhinder jat from haryana india nice to meet you Wikiwala Jat (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to meet you to. I am a Kharal from Pind Dadan Khan. Kharal1 (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kharal1@Wikiwala Jat I have no views regarding whether Kharals are Rajputs or Jats. I only want to inform that in no case British colonial era sources can be cited in the caste-related article. So while editing, please keep this in view and select post-independence references. Thanks in advance for understanding this. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I think we should just remove Jaati affiliation in the introduction and let the history and description part address that. Kharal1 (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kharal&oldid=1219716319"