Talk:Hindko

message: Someone seems to keep editing this article with references to Pashtun or Pathan yet there is no relationship between Hindko/Hindkowan and Pashto/Pashtun. The latter are Iranian, the former are Punjabi (Indo-Aryan). Hindko/Hindkowan ARE a mix of Punjabi and another language/ethnicity, but that is Mirpuri to the Northeast, not Pashto to the West. There are many huge cultural differences between the Pashtun who tend to be Sunnis of the Deobandi variety whereas Hindkowans are usually Barelwi Sunnis. There has been historical animosity between the two.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.147.134 (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindkowans of today are mostly living along side pashtuns and have intermarried many pashtuns today speak hundko as their first language mostly hindkowans are sunnis as well stop spreading fake information 2A02:9B0:4039:6AF7:1955:9C13:12AB:79A8 (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Pashto

message: Ran across that spelling in this New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/nyregion/15hospital.html
Ms. Khan, a Muslim, speaks Urdu, Pashto, Punjabi and Hinko, a Pakistani dialect she said was similar to Punjabi.
Not sure whether it was just a case of the journalist not knowing the correct spelling, or a legitimate alternative... --babbage (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: followup: I found a reference with this spelling: Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan. Adding it. --babbage (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read it again @Uanlfa http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/nyregion/15hospital.html Ms. Khan, a Muslim, speaks Urdu, Pashto, Punjabi and Hinko, a Pakistani dialect she said was similar to Punjabi. ₯€₠€₯
Hindko Abdullahjan123 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can it be spelled "Hinko"? 

message: Should be more on the language itself... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This material is just a rehash of other discredited material and isn't supported by reliable linguistic sources.  --Taivo (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Read WP:BRD.  If someone reverts your edits then you have to justify on the Talk Page and build a consensus before re-editing.  You have failed miserably at even attempting to build a consensus.  If you want us to consider your sources, then you have to provide full publication details so that they are available for our inspection and verification--not just a name and author's name.  --Taivo (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Language itself

message: There is currently a deletion discussion taking place at Commons regarding :File:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg, which can be viewed here. Regardless of whether the map image is deleted at Commons, I think that it needs to be removed from all English Wikipedia articles because it breaches our synthesis policy. The image creator has provided a long list of sources in the deletion discussion and it is evident from those that none contain all of the information shown in the image, nor is it a simple task to work out which bits of information were gleaned from which source(s). We simply do not permit people to aggregate information in this way. It should also be noted that the chances are very high that the various sources did not even adopt the same methodology in compiling their data, which makes the analysis of the creator even more suspect.I have removed the image because the Commons discussion may end up as something other than "delete" and yet the thing is still invalid on English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Map was deleted on two reasons. 1... Commons deletion discussion but now Deletion request by Sitush has been rejected on Wikimedia Commons. 2... Sitush has a self perception that map is synthesis, which is actually not because it is based on latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. So I am re inserting it. Unless Sitush prove it again as a synthesis and refer me the areas of map being synthesized also mentioning the different publications along with page numbers where from in his kind opinion I have synthesized the map.Maria0333 (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the deletion discussion on commons you explicitly listed 13 separate sources that were used to create the map. You can't turn around and now say it's all from one book. If multiple sources were all put in to make the map, and it was not built from a single source, it's WP:SYNTHESIS, and thus a violation of WP:OR. Until you get your story straight, it must remain out of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Dont try to be a lawyer who plays with words.I clearly mentioned there that it is not a synthesis and  my map is as per Cardona as the latest research on indo aryn languages. You have a self perception that map is synthesis, which is actually not because it is based on latest research of 2007 in the Publication named 'The Indo-Aryan Languages' by George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain. So I am re inserting it. Unless you prove it as a synthesis and refer me the areas of map being synthesized also mentioning the different publications along with page numbers where from in your kind opinion I have synthesized the map.  develop WP consensus for deletion if you proved it synthesis. Rules are rules for every one whether a established editor or a non established editor. In fact established editor should first set the example for non established editors. Thanks Maria0333 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Commons was not the right place to discuss the content of the map, but the talk pages of the numerous articles where it is used also are not the right place. Please participate in consolidated discussion at . --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map image breaches policy & has been removed 

message: I've just tagged most of this article as being unsourced. Clearly the info comes from somewhere...but unless sources are added soon, the info should be removed per WP:V. It's always better to say less that is verified than to have a bunch of questionable info. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced sections 

message: Attention all Jasimkhanum10 is topic ban for three months till november 2015 from all articles relating to Pakistan India and Afghanistan. See his talk page. 39.47.254.20 (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , both his edits and his move. --JorisvS (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism by a WP topic ban user Jasimkhanum10 

message: Hindko is a language and not a Punjabi dialect si lie to 'Panjistani' in North Panjab and parts of Kashmir.
This can be simply proof by the fact that it is the 6th biggest most language spoken in Pakistan and the is the second most popular language of the province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Higher Education Commission (HEC) has also established an academy for the promotion of Hindko Language, Culture and its literature and they named it Gandhara Hindko Academy.
The address of this academy is 2-Chinar Road, Abdara, University Town, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan.
The official contacts of this academy are: +92915701626 , ghbpakistan@gmail.com, www.gandharahindko.com, https://twitter.com/gandharahindko1, https://www.facebook.com/gandharahindkoboard.  The director of the Academy is Professor Syed Anwar Shah Kazmi. Academy has almost 20 employees who are working and doing research on this language.
All the information is correct and can be verified by contacting on the mentioned details.
Almost 75 books has been published in this language by Gandhara Hindko Board and more than 100 books will be published in this year.
Two international Conferences of this language had been organized and the third one is in the month of November of this year.
Therefore it is requested to make the correction and remove it under Punjabi or any dialect.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqarahmad2311 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Answer to your question is already on talk page see section Language source? summerizing that "The fact that it began to be standardized doesn't make it language, nor does the fact that it was measured in censuses." Additionally if you read Talk page disscussions you will clearly understand why there is WP concensus that Hindko is a dialect NOT A LANGUAGE. 39.47.30.22 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindko is the 6th biggest language of Pakistan (not a Punjabi Dialect) 

message: It is requested that move from Hindko dialect to Hindko be reversed. Because Hindko dialect and Saraiki dialect both are classified under Western Punjabi Language. There is already an agreement among users to title Saraiki dialect . This move will inconsistent if one is titled dialect and other differently. It was not even discussed. ₯€₠€₯
: Thanks Deaed , more importantly hindko is a disambiguation page Yoyi ling (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current title, "Hindko" is ok. The original speakers of the language consider it a language not dialect. Khestwol (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Done, oh I should clarify that there was no move protection. Moves over redirects that have more than 1 revision require page swaps — Andy W. (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, appreciate it Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  and the IP who requested the move. Please bear in mind that cut-and-paste moves, such as the one that recently happened is undesirable as it splits the Help:Page history, which is legally required for attribution. If you are unable to perform a move, please use WP:RMT to request a move, and a page mover or admin will answer the request. I've performed the swap in the meantime, but please keep that in mind, and please don't cut-paste in the future. — Andy W. (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverse a Move which was never disscussed

message: Opinions are welcome on the best way to structure the topic across its articles.
The Hindko dialects form a dialect chain starting with Peshawar and Kohat in the west, then passing through Attock in the south and then going northeast into Hazara. Ethnologue has partitioned this continuum into two languages: Northern Hindko (encompassing the varieties of Hazara and currently treated in the article Kagani dialect) and Southern Hindko (subsuming all other varieties), which is covered by the present article. So far so good, but where should Hindko as a whole unit be described? In one of the two article? Or in an article of its own (Hindko)?
And how about Hindko language? The area of the proper "language" (with a literary tradition and the self-identification of its speakers) seems to include the ends of the spectrum (Peshawar in the west and Hazara in the east), but not the middle bit of Attock. And that spans the border between the two "languages" that ethnologue defines. Should the language be treated in a separate article from the dialect area, or should the two be lumped together? –  Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic structure 

message: I know in this case "Indian" means Indo-Aryan, but until we can clarify that in the article I am shifting it here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:16, 4 June 20vas17 (UTC)
The name Hindko means "the Indian language" (in contrast to neighboring Pashto).
:I'm not sure I understand what needs clarification here. This is the etymology of the word, and in this context its meaning isn't "Indo-Aryan". The full quote is "The word evidently just means 'the Indian language', i.e. as distinct from Pashto, although various explanations are offered as to its origin." and then there's a footnote that adds, inter alia, "Grierson took 'Hindko' to mean 'the language of Hindūs', a definition naturally hotly disputed in Pakistan." – Uanfala 01:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , thank you for pinging me. Well i disagree with the term "Indian languages" because there is not such things. The technical meaning of the term would be languages indigenous to India. As for "languages of the Hindus" well the problem here is "Hindu" "Sindhu" "Indus" are geographic terms and not religious terms. It was introduced as a religious term more recently by the British. "India" today might be used to refer to a country but it's historic and correct meaning as Hindustan is land of the Indus, excluding much of the territory of the Indian peninsula. That being said, I am okay with restoring the paragraph back into the article provided we add a note (I am not familiar with the code) differentiating between Indian and Indo-Aryan. "Indian" today might mean something or someone for India but back then it was not refereed to as such and that's the note we need to use. To distinguish the modern country of modern "Indian" from Indo-Aryan.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , you're perfectly right about all that, but the sentence didn't claim Hindko was an Indian language, it said that the meaning of the word was "the Indian language". With the reworded sentence it should be clearer that it was about etymology. I'm restoring it now, if you still feel that a clarification is needed, you can insert a footnote by placing the code  in the text where you want the footnote to appear. – Uanfala 09:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Dear User:Uanfala, I would completely accept your proposed wording in light of the facts that you've provided. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Nadeem Khan Tanoli (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018 

message: The distribution of Hindko dialect shows Rawalpindi of Punjab province as speaking this language. This is completely false. People living Rawalpindi district speak the Potohari/Pothwari dialect, not Hindko. I don't know why people keep on propagating such lies online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019‎ 2600:8806:2603:3300:d16a:ec71:9ba0:c768 (talk) 01:43, 16 March (UTC)
:You're right, thanks for pointing this out. This is a bit of text that has hung around since the old days, I've been meaning to rewrite this section of the article for some time. Will remove the offending bits now. – Uanfala (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rawalpindi? 

message: , you've added a mention that Hindko is spoken in Afghanistan, based on this newspaper article. I seem to recall that a previous version of this article used to have a similar mention, one that I had removed because I hadn't been able to find any reliable sources for it. Sure, the claim is repeated by many of the unreliable sources, but without references or discussion. As far as I can see, this is likely to be based only on the existence of a community named "Hindki" in Afghanistan. Of course, it may be that they do speak a Hindko dialect, but for all we know they may be speakers of any other nearby Indo-Aryan language, and it may be that they don't speak an Indo-Aryan language at all any more. In the absence of any evidence or reliable sources, I don't think we should be making this claim. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear User:Uanfala, a documentary about the Hindko language shows that the language is indeed spoken by the Hindus and Sikhs of Afghanistan. The newspaper article is reliable corroborates the same. The Australian Institute of International Affairs also mentions that the Afghan Sikhs "speak Hindko, a dialect of Punjabi that is mostly found around Peshawar, in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in north-west Pakistan." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the additional references. I've watched the documentary and it was very informative. The paper from the Australian Institute of International Affairs is really useful, it is the only source so far that appears to be unambiguous: in the way it explicitly links the Hindko of Afghanistan with the Hindko of Peshawar. I'm going to to rewrite the mention of Afghanistan based on that source. I'm not going to use the article at livemint.com: although primary journalism definitely has a place in sourcing, that article is an overview (without references too), and so a tertiary source that's not necessarily any more reliable than anything you or I could write here on wikipedia. Particularly infelicitous is its statement that Hindko is largely understood to be the language of the non-Muslim population of Afghanistan: it's either confused (Hindus and Sikhs in Afghanistan do not all come from Hindko-speaking areas), or misleading (as it seems to imply that they do). – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken in Afghanistan? 

message: I've just removed the following recently added text: (ping to ):
:
I don't think the Hindko referred to in the source cited is the same Hindko our article is about. The term is somewhat ambiguous, and it has been applied for example to the Saraiki dialects of Dera Ismail Khan, and has more broadly been used by Pashtuns for any Indo-Aryan variety. Of course, it may be that the Hindko mentioned there is the right one, but that's unlikely given how far the area is from the territories where Hindko proper is spoken, how close it is to areas where other IA languages are found, and how very few Hindko speakers come up in the relevant census results: in 1981 there were only 8 in Kalat district (see p. 81 of this), and as few as 3 in Kohlu, the region of the Marri described in the source above (p. 62 of this). – Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken in Balochistan? 

message: I've rewritten a couple of sentences on the pattern of bilingualism with Pashto. This has resulted in a few of the sources used in the previous revision getting removed. Refs #37 and #38 are to different versions of the same text, and the context there is the efforts at establishing Pashto as a language of instruction in schools in the late years of the Raj. In my opinion, this piece of information is a bit too niche to be included in this article, and at the very least it can't stay in its present form because it's being used for an unwarranted claim about the opposition to Pashto in a stronger form. I've also disposed of refs #35 and #36: I've only been able to track down the first one, replacing it with Shackle 1983, of which it is only a republished version (riddled with typos, hence the preference for the original). I don't have access to #36 at the moment but judging by the quote (which is identical to the quote in #35), it appears to be yet another version of the same text. – Uanfala (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs removed January 2020 

message: This is about additions like this or this. Now, if the intention was to make the statement that Hindko-speakers are known as "Hindkowans", then fine, feel free (though that would ideally be integrated with the brief discussion of what I assume to be the related term of "Hindku" in the last footnote of the lead). However, the added text does not make that statement, it makes another very different statement: that Hindkowans are an ethnic group and that they are a majority among Hindko speakers. That's not found in the sources. The second edit backs up this claim with five references, but the last four should be ignored as they only constitute uses of the term "Hindkowan" and make no statements about ethnicity. The first source appears more substantial though: it does indeed make a reference to Hindkowans as an ethnic minority of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, but it does so in passing and it appears to be only in the context of Hazara. I don't think anyone would doubt that the Hindko-speakers of Hazara make up some sort of ethno-linguistic entity, but this Wikipedia article is not only about the Hindko of Hazara, it's about a much broader group of dialects that includes those of Hazara, but also of other places, both inside KPK (Kohat and Peshawar) and outside (Kashmir as well as Attock and Chakwal districts of Punjab).
I'll remove this recent addition as it's not supported by the sources used and apparently contradicts the picture of extreme ethnic diversity painted by Rensch (1992, pp. 10–11) and Shackle (1980): both are cited in the very same sentence of the article where those additions were made! Some discussion of the term "Hindkowans" is definitely needed, but if any statements are to be made about a Hindkowan ethnicity, they need to be based on sources that explicitly discuss Hindkowans as an ethnicity. – Uanfala (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . We should be careful not to veer into original research while approaching this subject (see WP:BLUE). The purpose of the sources was to demonstrate the predominate subsuming of native Hindko-speakers under the Hindkowan identity. The sources mentioned are able to clearly verify this. We haven't claimed anywhere that only Hindkowans speak Hindko though, and that was implied in the manner I had edited the statement. If you have doubts over the question of ethnicity, a compromise can be to modify the opening statement from "people of various ethnic backgrounds" to "people of various ethnolinguistic backgrounds" or just "people of various backgrounds". However, even this wouldn't be entirely correct in my opinion; the very idea of a separate Hazara province is based on the ethnic argument, and the notion that Hindko-speakers constitute a separate ethnolinguistic group. Due to Hindko-speakers being a very small group out of a population of 220 million, there is naturally not as abundant literature available compared to larger groups like Pashtuns, Punjabis and Kashmiris. However, this is something easy to qualify and verify. I have added some below for the purpose of discussion:
* Shah, S., David, M.K. and Gulzar, M.A., 2017. Role of Hindko in Multilingual Community: Issues of Language (s) Choice and Use. Kashmir Journal of Language Research, 20(1). The focus is on the expanding use of Hindko among Hindko-speaking respondents and on the limited use of non-Hindko speaking respondents, relating this with instrumental and integrative attitudes. A general introduction to Hindko is followed by the objectives, and a review of previous studies related to instrumental and integrative attitudes towards using language as well as cross-linguistic and cross-cultural influences in the Mansehra region. The findings indicate that a significant number of Hindkowans and non-Hindkowans hardly speak Hindko informal settings, for instance at the work place...
* Nadvi, J., 2014. Farhan Hanif Siddiqi, The Politics of Ethnicity in Pakistan: The Balouch, Sindhi and Mohajir Ethnic Movements. Journal of International and Global Studies, 5(2), pp.126-129. The major ethnic groups of Pakistan include: Punjabis, (2) Pashtuns, Sindhis, Saraikis, Muhajirs, Balochis, Hindkowans, and Chitralis. There are also smaller ethnic groups... 
* Shah, S.A.M. and Amjad, S., 2011. Cultural diversity in Pakistan: national vs provincial. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), pp.331-344. The distribution of ethnic groups in numerical size and on language basis include: Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Seraikis, Muhajirs, Balochis, Hindkowans, Chitralis and other smaller groups. 
* Rakha, A., Shin, K.J., Yoon, J.A., Kim, N.Y., Siddique, M.H., Yang, I.S., Yang, W.I. and Lee, H.Y., 2011. Forensic and genetic characterization of mtDNA from Pathans of Pakistan. International journal of legal medicine, 125(6), pp.841-848. Major ethnic groups of Pakistan include the Punjabis, Pathans, Sindhis, Seraikis, Muhajirs, Balochis, Hindkowans, and Chitralis
* Ghafoor, A., Mehraj, J., Afridi, N.D., Rafiq, Y., Wendl-Richter, H.U. and Hasan, R., 2012. Multidrug resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis amongst Category I & II failures and Category II relapse patients from Pakistan. International journal of mycobacteriology, 1(3), pp.118-123. The main ethnic groups in the KP province are the Pashtuns, locally referred to as Pakhtuns, who form about two-thirds of the population, followed by a number of smaller ethnic groups, most notably, the Hindkowans.
* Raja, N.A. and Sohail, A., 2011. A Brief Introduction of Hindko Language. Language in India, 11(11). Some Hindko speakers are also found in Northern India, as at the time of partition, many Hindu Hindko speakers migrated to India. They are preserving their language and passing it on to their children as reported in "Daily Times-Hindu-Hindkowans at partition of India..."
etc. Mar4d (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources 2 through 5 are relevant here (but not #1, which as fas as I can see only uses "Hindkowans" to refer to L1 speakers of Hindko, or #6, where the term only appears in the title of a work cited). While they only have passing mentions in unrelated contexts, they indeed take it for granted that the Hindkowans are an ethnic group. Therefore, I withdraw my objections to this point.  The other points still stand though. When the previous version of this article made reference to the various ethic backgrounds, that was in the context of the discussion in the second section ("Social setting"). The ethnic groups in question are ones like the Awan or the Tanoli, and a category like "Hindkowan" does not appear there. The interjection of a mention of Hindkowans was not congruent with that discussion, or with its sources. The term definitely needs to be introduced somehow (it's apparently widely used), but that needs to be done in an accurate manner (so its relation to the other ethnic categories is made clear), and it should be based on what's in the sources (ideally not consisting just in passing mentions; there must be some relevant literature out there: just look at the phonology section for how much has been published in recent years).  The statement in the current version of the article – that Hindkowans are the predominant ethnicity among speakers of Hindko, can't stay. Fundamentally, it makes two claims: 1) that there are non-trivial groups of native speakers of Hindko who are not Hindkowan (and so "Hindkowan" isn't simply a synonym for a Hindko speaker), and 2) that there are more Hindkowan than non-Hindkowan speakers of Hindko, as that language is defined in the article (with Hazara simply one of several regions where it's spoken). I don't see either of these claims as being backed by any of the sources brought up so far. – Uanfala (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Adding that I wouldn't object if the mention of ethnicities is removed from the lede if you believe broaching the question without mentioning "Hindkowans" might be misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Would you be okay with adding a statement that Hindko-speakers are known as Hindkowans somewhere, without broaching the question of ethnicity, as you implied above? Mar4d (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I'd be fine with that. Ideally, such a mention would be integrated with the brief discussion of the other two terms: "Hindki" and "Hindkun" (it's currently found in the last sentence of the lede and its footnote but that may be moved elsewhere). – Uanfala (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I would say the usage of the word "Hindkowan" is a recentism, as Hindko was considered for a long time as a dialect of Punjabi. In the past, most speakers of Hindko would have identified as Punjabis. Pashtuns most likely used the term "Hindkowan" to refer to speakers of Indic languages, given the origin of the word "Hindko", as well as the fact that the Punjabi dialects had a border with Pashto-speaking regions of South Asia. AnupamTalk 07:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   That's an interesting point you make. I suggest integrating the rise of the Hindkowan identity, and explaining it's link to the dialect as a whole. Mar4d (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks User:Mar4d. If you look up the term "Hindki", you'll actually find that it is the older term used by those in Pashtun regions to refer to speakers of Punjabi dialects such as Multani and Hindko. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindkowan ethnicity?