Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2253cf4df36cf52

Jump to content

Talk:Mahton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 months ago by MaplesyrupSushi in topic Mahatam and Mahton- same origin tribes

Mahatam and Mahton- same origin tribes

[edit]


Gazetteer of Jalandhar of 1904 , pages 83, 84 and 85 which reads as follows:


"So far as I can see, there is no reason to believe Mahtons were ever Rajputs. They may have been, but there is no evidence of for the fact except their own assertion. They are certainly not Rajputs now. They have not a single Rajput quality. The Rajputs are distinguished by idleness, thriftlesness and pride. A Mahton is most industrious and penurious, and does not know what pride is. He wears dirty clothes out of choice; he seels his wheat and subsists on coarse grain. He lets his women work in field...Before leaving the legendary side of the question, it should be noted that the Mahtons say their ancestor came on a hunting expedition from Jammu. Now the Mahatams, to the present day, are known as hunters. But such remote points of resemblance need not be dwelt upon. We find the physical and moral qualities of the Mahatams and Mehtons the same. The Mahatams are remarkable for their low stature, so are Mahtons [Hoshiarpur Gazetteer), and both are notorious for quarrelsome disposition. I would not lay too much stress on the fact that Mahatams are found on the banks of the rivers amd do not care so much for cultivating from wells as other tribes do, while Mahtons are found mostly in Sirwal, both the Bein and its tributaries....They came from the same stock, seems very likely. They are probably hill men, which accounts for their low stature, who emerged , may be at different periods, from Jammu hils, through the valley of Ravi and Chenab. One branch went down the Sutlej; these are Mahatams. (The others crossed the Beas and settled in Doab these are Mahtons). The Mahatams got among the lot of thieves, and remained what they were originally, a very low class. The Mahtons have, for nearly a century enjoyed a fairly stable government, and have risen in social scale, as they were bound to on account of their industry, thrift and commonsense, when they got a fair chance. Their own story that about 80 years ago they considered it a disgrace to be called Mahtons, simply means that 80 years ago, they were still despised and held in contempt. It is far more likely that a tribe, with the qualities of Mahtons, would raise from a low position, than that they would sink from a high one.

There are about 30 Mathon gots: The propreitors of Darauli , Padiana and Darauli Khurd are of the Manas (Manhas) got and those of Domunda of a new got named Khatti, an offshoot from this. In Ghurial the proprietors are of Kharaundh, Mujariya and Khutan gots, and the latter two are also found in Darauli. The Pur and Kharaundh gots occur in Domunda as tenants with rights of occupancy. The propereitors of Sirhali Mandi are of Chauhan got."

Gazetteer of Jalandhar of 1904 , pages 83, 84 and 85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majhail85 (talkcontribs) 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

@Majhail85 - Please refer to WP:RAJ. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Edit COI

[edit]

User Id- 2409:40D6:10C2:1DFF:C5CC:FC70:F309:453 Deleted detailed and throughly researched content based on authentic government documents and records, provided with proper citations (also available on Google books). Contemporary documents were referenced for factual accuracy. Please restore the deleted content from below two instances 1.) -991 at 18:32 2.) -1,309 at 20:34 Thanks 2001:1970:5DEC:6100:D839:68EA:F143:CD64 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Edit COi

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing, and appreciate your time and effort. Though, for record, factual information from authentic contemporary records was rejected to be replaced by personal opinion, from much later publication, contemporary to normal norms. Unfortunately, there are no laws to prevent organizations from spreading falsely propagating malicious misinformation. Hopefully, our respected government takes note of it, and initiates appropriate action against perpetrators of social and communal hatred. Thanks again. 2605:B100:351:DBD0:306A:43FC:4E17:5AF5 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply