The History of India as told by its own Historians [Archive]

View Full Version : The History of India as told by its own Historians

vivekkaliyar

January 27th, 2008, 02:42 PM

lrburdak

January 27th, 2008, 05:32 PM

Good link Vivek,

This book by Sir H M Eliot mentions about Jats at many times. Since it is in PDF format we can not copy from it. One entry in Index is

The Jats 507

But we do not find this page in online edition. Can somebody try and find and reproduce the content about Jats.

regards,

dndeswal

January 28th, 2008, 09:54 PM

amiteshv

January 28th, 2008, 10:30 PM

no link is opening but Taj usually is called as Tejo Mahalya, the Palace of Tejaji, the term used by Jats for lord Siva. The people who dominate Agra regeion are Jats. And Jats call Siva as Teja.

amiteshv

January 28th, 2008, 10:49 PM

all the well foundations on these alluvial soils of north west indian sub-continent, on which rests Taj are much older than shahjahan, the prince khurrumm. even ghazni avoided breaking of this tejo mahalaya.

amiteshv

January 28th, 2008, 11:01 PM

one more structure was depicted to Ghazni, some what like the structure on vishnupad parvat, the name givers of mehrauli in delhi and hence all delhi.

ek ulti gazar (reverse carrot) ka structure, perhaps named as quatub tower. its gate still points towards north, tien-shan mountains, where from came lord siva.

had it been a mughal structure then gate must have been towards east or west like that of jama masjid.

ravichaudhary

January 28th, 2008, 11:45 PM

The title is a little misleading.

The books are a series, by two British authors, Elliot and Dowson,
An {edited) on line version is available at

http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D80201018%26ct%3D4

and are a collection of extracts from Islamic Arabic and Persian manuscripts that5 contain references to India.

The interpretations are Rajput, not Jat, and the Jats are given notice now and then.

The jats are generally lambasted and abused, and so they should be, as the jats resisted with some success, the Islamic invasions of India.

The other problem is that the authors’ translations are done from a British Point of view, and not a Jat point of view.

Thus the British would show the various rajas as Rajput not Jat.

A lot of this has be to be re translated from the original sources, as the English translations are suspect on the finer points

The data in Arabic, Farsi or Urdu, could have a different meaning if interpreted from a Jat point of view.

The 8 volumes are woefully silent on the Jat resistance, and make no mention of the wars they had with the jats of Punjab, Haryana and U, P. there is no mention of the resistance by the Sarv Khap of Haryana from Shoram Muzzarfarnagar.

To get a grip on and an understanding of Jat history, we need to look at this data, accept it is biased against the Jats, and re interpret it.

Authors like B S Dahoya, R S Joon, Dilip Singh Ahlawat, Dr Nathan Singh, Hukam Singh Pauria, will give one a better sense of Jat History and ethos, and help one to interpret such texts. If one does not one is left with the prospect of accepting the likes of Irfan Habib, as being an authority on the Jats (which he is not)

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary
.

amiteshv

January 29th, 2008, 12:02 AM

.
Interestingly, in this link, there is also an article titled Tajmahal was a Rajput Palace (http://www.scribd.com/doc/337607/Tajmahal-was-a-Rajput-Palace) .

But the text has been removed from the page due to "suspected copyright infringement" !!
.

to my opinion rajput was not born till that time. i saw gwalior fort and amer also. while amer still looks to b too young as compared to gwalior fort. all taz n quatub are much older structures. at least of asokan era?

vijay

January 29th, 2008, 12:19 AM

Since it is in PDF format we can not copy from it.

It can be copied. I know how to extract the text from PDF files ...... or is there any other meaning of 'copy' here ?

vijay

January 29th, 2008, 12:29 AM

.
Interestingly, in this link, there is also an article titled Tajmahal was a Rajput Palace (http://www.scribd.com/doc/337607/Tajmahal-was-a-Rajput-Palace) .

But the text has been removed from the page due to "suspected copyright infringement" !!
.

That link is not working but........

Taj Mahal was a Hindu monument and was built much earlier than Shanjahan's Regime , already proved by Carbon Dating , but maybe our politician have more concern about Muslim votes rather than bringing out the real facts in public.

A room in the basement of Taj Mahal contains some documents regarding the Taj Mahal. Govt. is so reluctant to make them public. Why ?

vijay

January 29th, 2008, 12:40 AM

Thus the British would show the various rajas as Rajput not Jat.

This is the real pity ...... as not only British but others too consider Rajas as Rajput ( Raja ka put ) only and later it became a caste/race unintentionally.

In ancient times, Rajput was just a word which was used to mention about hereditary clans of Hindu Kings/Emperors ( irrespective of the caste )

snandal1

January 29th, 2008, 12:42 AM

where, when ghauri, bit too timid, still too timid like a cat, marched forward, to consolidate western up, there dodwal jats from mhow village in baghpat/badauth came forward to give him resistence. but unfortunately, ncert books call these jats as rajputs.

snandal1

January 29th, 2008, 01:27 AM

while ncert books are open unfortunately regarding dodwals of mhow as rajputs, but in reality they are jats and still living there as jats only from thousands of years....

the books are seriously and sadly mistaken to be written by any common sense man...

who call any warrior tribe as rajput instead of jat....:)

ravichaudhary

January 29th, 2008, 02:16 AM

while ncert books are open unfortunately regarding dodwals of mhow as rajputs, but in reality they are jats and still living there as jats only from thousands of years....

the books are seriously and sadly mistaken to be written by any common sense man...

We need to keep working to have this type of error changed.

Letters to NCERT is a good start.

NCERT is now quite amenable to this.

Ravi Chaudhary

lrburdak

January 29th, 2008, 08:54 AM

Hi Vijay,

Copy means the text which mentions about Jats be copied and pasted here so that we can discuss it properly.

Truly Rajput is always misnomer. For example my own clan Burdak is mentioned as Chauhan Rajputs in the records of Bards. But at present no Rajput writes Burdak as surname. It is found only in Jats and Bisnois who are practically Jats.

Regards,

It can be copied. I know how to extract the text from PDF files ...... or is there any other meaning of 'copy' here ?

This is the real pity ...... as not only British but others too consider Rajas as Rajput ( Raja ka put ) only and later it became a caste/race unintentionally.

In ancient times, Rajput was just a word which was used to mention about hereditary clans of Hindu Kings/Emperors ( irrespective of the caste )

dkumars

January 29th, 2008, 12:09 PM

That link is not working but........

Taj Mahal was a Hindu monument and was built much earlier than Shanjahan's Regime , already proved by Carbon Dating , but maybe our politician have more concern about Muslim votes rather than bringing out the real facts in public.

A room in the basement of Taj Mahal contains some documents regarding the Taj Mahal. Govt. is so reluctant to make them public. Why ?

Where did u get this information ??? I don deny what u said... i too got such kind of mails but do u have some proof or some genuine link which gives information about carbon dating practice and its older monument and its HIndu's ... i will be glad to see such information but whether its Shahjahan's or some JAtts that doesnt make much difference atlest for me... i don know what ppl want ... if it will be proved that it was constructed by Surajmal(I mean some Jat or Hindu ), then they will start living in that or what... or will it become their private property ????

mukeshkumar007

January 29th, 2008, 12:34 PM

vijay

January 29th, 2008, 06:16 PM

Where did u get this information ??? I don deny what u said... i too got such kind of mails but do u have some proof or some genuine link which gives information about carbon dating practice and its older monument and its HIndu's ... i will be glad to see such information but whether its Shahjahan's or some JAtts that doesnt make much difference atlest for me...

I third your thoughts Brother :rolleyes:

Every person knows how to gather the information he needs, if he really interested in that instead of questioning others without having a thought of himself.

Well, it doesn't matter to me that what you think about it or whether you know about Carbon Dating practice or not.

What matters to me is that i have keen interest in this subjuct and like to discuss about this. People who don't have any interest in these type of discussion can spend their precious time in other sections and please let others discuss here.

Now on the Topic :

Carbon Dating done in 1984 by Independent Sources and evidence provided to Archaeological Survey of India. Read this :

http://home.freeuk.com/tajmahal/18carbon.htm

Read Shri P. N. Oak's work on Taj mahal :

http://home.freeuk.com/tajmahal/19Author.htm ( Read who is he )
http://home.freeuk.com/tajmahal/2sitemap.htm ( His work )

P N Oak's work analyzed critically :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A5220
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm

Read this ( ofcourse impartially :) ) if you have some time and analyze yourself. If possible, do your own research and let us know what you think ?

vijay

January 29th, 2008, 08:52 PM

Hi Vijay,

Copy means the text which mentions about Jats be copied and pasted here so that we can discuss it properly.

Ok Burdak Ji

So here i have all the four volumes in Notepad form :) .....
But can't attach them here as Jatland Forums doesn't support attachment of files which are larger than 100 KB ( They are approx. 2MB each )

Tell me your E-mail id i will send them to you.

Regards

lrburdak

January 29th, 2008, 09:06 PM

Hi Vijay,

Here is my E Mail ID lr_burdak@yahoo.com

Thanks

vijay

January 29th, 2008, 09:24 PM

Hi Vijay,

Here is my E Mail ID lr_burdak@yahoo.com

Thanks

Just mailed now .. :)

lrburdak

January 30th, 2008, 08:21 AM

Thanks Vijay,

I got the attachment and saved it as word file.

lrburdak

January 30th, 2008, 12:32 PM

The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period,
Sir H. M. Elliot, Edited by John Dowson London Trubner Company, 1867-1877

Following is important content extracted from the above book. It is important to note that Nirun is identified by Thakur Deshraj as the state of Nehra Jats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nírún.-Sákúra.-Jarak 396

Amongst the many places of which it is difficult to establish the true position in ancient Sind, Nírún or Nairún is one of the most perplexing, for several reasons. Its first syllable, even, is a con*troverted point, and while all the French authors uniformly write it Byroun, after Abú-l Fidá,* the English equally persist in following Idrísí* (p. 78), and writing it Nírún and Nerún. What imparts a presumptive correctness to the French reading is, that it is set down as the birthplace of the celebrated Abú Ríhán al Birúní. But here, in limine, several strong objections may be raised,-that Abú Ríhán was a Khwárizmian, and is so called by the best authorities,-that throughout his descriptive geography of India, he is more deficient in his account of Sind than in any other part,-that he nowhere mentions it as his birthplace,-and that no one ever heard of any Bírún in Sind, though many local traditions speak of a Nírún, and concur in fixing its locality. Abú-l Fidá certainly writes it Bírún, but there is often an assumption of accuracy about him which has been far too readily conceded by the moderns; for he was merely a distant foreigner, who never left Syria except to go to Mecca and Egypt, and he was therefore compelled to copy and rely on the defective information of others. Istakhrí, Ibn Haukal, and the Ashkálu-l Bilád are not quite determinate in their reading, but the Chach-náma and the Tuhfatu-l Kirám never write it in any other form than with the initial N, followed by yá, which leaves us still in doubt whether the word be Nairún, Nírún, or Nerún; but it is certainly neither Birun, nor Bírún, nor Bairún, nor Byroun.

Other considerations with respect to the name of Abú Ríhán, will be found in the Note devoted to that philosopher, in the second volume of this work.
Under the dynasty of the Ráís, Nírún was included within the government of Bráhmanábád (p. 158). The inhabitants of Nírún solicited from the Arabs a cartel of protection, as their city was "on the very road of the Arabs to Sind" (p. 157). After the conquest of Debal, "Md. Kásim directed that the catapults should be sent by boat towards the fort of Nírún (p. 47), and the boats went up the stream called Sindh Ságara,* while he himself advanced by way of Sisám"* (p. 157). When Md. Kásim went from Debal "to the fortress of Nírún, which is twenty-five parasangs distant, he marched for six days, and on the seventh arrived at Nírún, where there is a meadow which they call Balhár, situated on the land of Barúzí,* which the inundations of the Indus had not yet reached (p. 158), and the army consequently complained of being oppressed by thirst. This drought was seasonably relieved through the efficacy of the general's prayers,-"when all the pools and lakes which were round that city were replenished with water." He then "moved towards Síwistán (Síhwán) by several marches, until he reached Bahraj or Mauj,* thirty parasangs from Nírún" (p. 158). After his expedition to Síwistán and Búdhiya, he was directed by Hajjáj to return to Nírún, and make preparations for crossing the Indus (p. 163). He accordingly moved back by several difficult marches "to the fort which is on the hill of Nírún,"* where there was a beautiful lake and charming grove (p. 163). This fort was the nearest point to the capital of the Khalif. After crossing the Indus, a garrison was left at Nírún, to keep open the communications in the rear and protect the con*voys (p. 144).

Istakhrí (p. 28) and Ibn Haukal tell us that "Nírún lies between Debal and Mansúra, but nearer to the latter, and that any traveller who wishes to go to Mansúra, must cross the river Indus at Manjá-barí, which is on the western bank, and stands opposite to Man*súra" (p. 37). The subsequent geographers copy these authors, as usual, adding little further information. Idrísí places it distinctly on the western bank (p. 78). Abú-l Fidá says it is fifteen para*sangs from Mansúra, and fixes it in latitude 26° 40', on the autho*rity of the Kánún of Birúní.*

The name of Sákara or Ságara, which is mentioned above, requires a few words of notice. The Chach-náma merely mentions that "the fleet of Md. Kásim came to anchor in the lake of Ságara;" but the Tuhfatu-l Kirám says, "having placed his manjaníks on boats, he sent them to the fort of Nírún, by way of the water of Sakúra, while he himself marched by land."* Elsewhere, we are informed in the same work, that "Debal, now called Thatta, was in the land of Sákúra."* Again, Tharra, which was a strong fort near Thatta, was "in the land of Sákúra."* Again, Dewal, Bhambúr, Bagár, and Tharra were each "excellent cities in the land of Sákúra."

We may consider the stream of Sákúra to correspond with the prolongation of the Gisrí or Ghárá creek, which at no very distant time must have communicated with the Indus above Thatta. Indeed, Mr. N. Crow, writing in the year 1800, says, "By a strange turn that the river has taken within these five and twenty years, just above Tatta, that city is flung out of the angle of the inferior Delta, in which it formerly stood, on the main land towards the hills of Buluchistán."*

The position here assigned to the Sákúra, points out the direction where we are to look for Nírún, to which, by means of that stream, there seems to have been a water communication-at least approxi*mate, if not direct.

It is quite evident that Nírún was on the western bank of the Indus. Not only do we find Muhammad Kásim going there in order to make due preparations for "crossing" that river, not only do we find Dáhir, on receiving the intelligence of the capture of Debal, directing Jaisiya to "cross over" from Nírún to Bráhmaná-bád without delay (MS. p. 102), but it is also so represented both in the text, and on the maps, of Istakhrí and the Ashkálu-l Bilád. Nevertheless, M. D'Avezac, in the map prefixed to the Memoire sur l'Inde, places it on the eastern bank. His authority stands deservedly high, but can be of no value against the positive testimony here adduced to the contrary.

How then it came in modern times to be considered identical with Haidarábád it is impossible to say, but so it is laid down unhesita*tingly from the Tuhfatu-l Kirám, down to the latest English tourist.* Even if it could be accounted for by supposing that the Falailí then constituted the main stream of the Indus, we should nevertheless find that the distances assigned to Nírún from various places named would not make it correspond in position with Haidarábád.

And here it is obvious to remark, that the establishment of its locality depends chiefly upon the sites which are assigned to other disputed cities, more especially to Debal and Mansúra. I have else*where stated my reasons for considering Debal to be represented by Karáchí, and Mansúra by Haidarábád. Much also depends on the real value of the farsang,* which greatly varied in different places, even in neighbouring provinces. As it was probably modified in Sind by the local kos, we may ascribe to it the small standard of two miles and a half, which we know it to have had upon the Tigris, according to the latest and most accurate investigations. Or, with*out assigning to these roughly estimated distances an accuracy which they were never intended to bear, we may consider the Sindian parasang to vary from two to three miles, so as in no instance to be less than the one, or more than the other. It is usual, and doubtless more correct, to fix the standard at a higher value than even three English miles; but this is evidently quite inapplicable in Sind, and would be even more decisive against the identity of Debal and Thatta, than the present hypothesis.*

Guided by all these considerations, I am disposed to place Nírún at Heláí, or Heláya, a little below Jarak, on the high road from Thatta to Haidarábád. The correspondences in other respects appear exact, in every instance of comparison.

It has a direct communication by a road over the hills with Bela and would be the first place in the valley of the Indus which the Arabs could reach by land, and therefore nearest to the capital of the Khiláfat.
Lakes abound in the neighbourhood, and are large enough, espe*cially the Kinjar, to have admitted Muhammad Kásim's fleet.
Nírún is represented as twenty-five parasangs from Debal. (The real distance is seventy British statute miles between Heláí and Karáchí.)
Nírún was situated on a hill, which would admit of its being identified with very few other places of note near the Indus. It lay between Debal and Mansúra, but was nearer to the latter. (This position also corresponds with that of Heláí). It was fifteen parasangs from Mansúra. (Thirty-five miles is the distance between Heláí and Haidarábád.)

dkumars

January 30th, 2008, 02:19 PM

I third your thoughts Brother :rolleyes: ... My Dear brother either u turn ur face or give some different expression... doesn matter.

Every person knows how to gather the information he needs, if he really interested in that instead of questioning others without having a thought of himself. Well brother, u have gathered enough information then why are u here on this thread and replying ??? You have thought of it and have a strong perception that Tajmahal was constructed by Hindus then m unable to understand what are u doing on this thread ???

Well, it doesn't matter to me that what you think about it or whether you know about Carbon Dating practice or not. Can it matter anyways ??? ... i dont think so. thats my perception and i feel i have full rights to object if i find anything wrong or false or atleast to clear my doubts. Tell me what for this thread is ??? If i agree with u guys then i shud be on this thread otherwise not??? Gud logic :)
And brother, jo insaan thoda bahut kuch jaan jata hai na toh usse lagne lagta hai ki aur duniya toh ch***a hai... bas ek woh hi padha likha hai.
Well, i don want to say anything other than that i know carbon dating well and i can explain the procedure if u want so that u can use that infor to find out ur house gate's age and all :p. I mean according to ur personal interest.

What matters to me is that i have keen interest in this subjuct and like to discuss about this. People who don't have any interest in these type of discussion can spend their precious time in other sections and please let others discuss here... If ur interest means that i shud always say in ur favor then m replying to a wrong guy. discussion doesn mean to accept things blindly rather discussion means exporation... considering negatives before positives... a chat full of favor and against. So mein kahin nahi jaane wala dost...

Now on the Topic :

Carbon Dating done in 1984 by Independent Sources and evidence provided to Archaeological Survey of India. Read this :

http://home.freeuk.com/tajmahal/18carbon.htm ... well gud work bhai but i am sorry again, i can not trust its genuineness. Read the letter again may be u can also smell hinduism/bajrangdal/shivsena kind thing , if u r unbiased and if u r excited to hear Hindus Tajmahal then its a differnt issue. Secondly, in this page the letter written to Indian Govt has lots of spelling mistakes/typos which gave rise to my doubt... i will mention some... generally when someone writes such sort of letters then such things are done with extra care... so this way i cant trust that gentleman's work too. But i don mean u also don trust ... no bro not at all... u have full rights to trust and feel Tajmahal is ours... feel like whatever :p

Read Shri P. N. Oak's work on Taj mahal :

http://home.freeuk.com/tajmahal/19Author.htm ( Read who is he )
http://home.freeuk.com/tajmahal/2sitemap.htm ( His work )

P N Oak's work analyzed critically :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A5220
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm

Read this ( ofcourse impartially :) ) if you have some time and analyze yourself. If possible, do your own research and let us know what you think ?

And bro last but not least, learn to treat ppl... neither i am ur slave nor u mine. I asked u that thing in very ordinary language but u use satires... everytime they are not required for everyone. If u feel u r the only guy who knows about carbon dating then unfortunately u r wrong my dear. I have seen ur other posts too. U have gud knowlege on certain subjects but i can feel irony in ur language. I am not Gandhi to corret but dats simply a suggestion... kindly ponder ... but again ur wish.

And most importantly how does it matter whether Tajmahal was Hindu's worship place or Muslims Tomb ???

lrburdak

January 30th, 2008, 02:54 PM

The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period,
Sir H. M. Elliot, Edited by John Dowson London Trubner Company, 1867-1877

Following content is aso extracted from the above book. Thakur Deshraj has mentioned about the rule of Balhara Jats in Sindh.
************************************************** ********

Sir H. Elliot endeavoured to identify and fix the position of several of the most important and interesting of the places men*tioned by the early geographers and historians, and some additions have since been made, chiefly from sources unpublished at the time when his original volume appeared. The following is an index of the notes

The Balhará page 354

Balhará.

The early Arab Geographers are unanimous in their spelling of the title "Balhará." The merchant Sulaimán says it is a title similar to the Chosroes of the Persians, and not a proper name. Ibn Khurdádba says that it signifies "King of Kings." According to Mas'údí it is a title borne by all the kings of the country, while Ibu Haukal states that it is a name derived from that of the country. Idrísí follows Ibn Khurdádba in giving to it the signification of "King of Kings," but, he adds, that the title was hereditary. Thus it seems clear that it was the general title of a dynasty, and that it must have borne some such signification as that assigned to it by Ibn Khurdádba.

Taking the accounts of the Arab writers, and comparing them with the Indian annals, there can be no great hesitation in identify*ing the "Balhará" with the dynasty settled at Ballabhi-pura, the princes of which were the founders of the Ballabhi era, and were probably known as the Ballabhi or Ballabh Ráís. This identifica*tion, originally proposed by Colonel Tod, has met with tacit acqui*escence, except from M. Reinaud, who considered the term "Balhará" to represent Málwá Ráí or "King of Málwá."*

Ballabhi-pura was, according to Tod, "destroyed in the fifth century, by an irruption of the Parthians, Getes, Huns or Catti, or a mixture of these tribes,"* In another place he gives the date of this event from Jain records as A.D. 524.* And in a further pas*sage he says, that after the destruction of Ballabhi-pura, its princes "fled eastward, eventually obtaining Chitor, when the Islands of Deo and Somnath-pattan, in the division termed Larika, became the seat of government. On its destruction, in the middle of the eighth century, Anhalwára became the metropolis, and this, as recorded, endured until the fourteenth century."* Hwen Tsang visited Balabhi in the seventh century, and Thomas gives the date of its destruction as 802 Samvat (745 A.D.)* The ruins of the city are well known, being situate about twenty miles west of Bhownuggur, in Kattiwar; and the name survives in that of the modern town of Wallay, which stands near them.*

Hindu authorities thus record the removal of the seat of govern*ment to the country of Lárike or Láta, which country Mas'údí names as being subject to the Balhará, and which the other writers describe as forming part of his dominions.

The capital of the Balhará is stated by Mas'údí to be "Mánkír (or Manákír) the great centre of India," and to be situated "eighty Sindí parasangs (640 miles) from the sea," a palpable exaggeration. Istakhrí and Ibn Haukal say that "Mánkír is the city in which the Balhará dwells, but they do not name it in their lists of the cities of Hind. Bírúní and Idrísí make no mention of it. The unavoidable inference is that the place had fallen to decay, and was known only by tradition in the days of these Arab writers.

The name Mánkír or Manákír bears a suggestive resemblance to "Minagara," a city which Ptolemy places on the Nerbadda, among the cities of Larike. Both are probably representatives of the Sanskrit mahá-nagara, "great city." Mánkír is said to mean "great centre," so that the word mahá (great) must be represented by the first syllable má; and the other syllables nakír or nákír are by no means a bad Arabic transcription of "Nagara," for the alpha*bet would not allow of a closer version than nakar. In Minagara, the word nagara, "city" is unquestionable. Ptolemy mentions another Minagara on the East coast, somewhere near the Mahánadí river, and Arrian, in the Periplus, has another Minagara in the valley of the Indus. The syllable mi would therefore seem to be a common appellative, having no local or ethnological import, but correspond*ing with mahá or some similar word.

The "Balhará" would thus seem to represent, as Tod affirmed, the Ballabh Ráís of Ballabhi-pura who were succeeded by the Bala Ráís of Anhalwára Pattan. Their territories included the ports in the country of Láta (Lárike) on the gulf of Cambay. These ports were frequented by Arab trading vessels, and so the accounts given of the Balhará by their geographers, vague and meagre as they are, exceed all that is recorded by them of the other cotemporary king*doms. The extent of the Balhará's territory can only be surmised, and no doubt it underwent continual change. Mas'údí, by impli*cation, places Tanna within his dominions, but this is farther south than would seem to be warranted. The Táptí on the south, and the Arávallí mountains on the north may perhaps represent an approxi*mation to the real extent of the kingdom. This may appear a limited dominion for a monarch of such renown as the Arabs repre*sent the Balhará to have been; but it must be remembered that these writers were accustomed to a simple patriarchal form of government, free from the pomp and splendour of the further east.

The "Balhará" would thus seem to represent, as Tod affirmed, the Ballabh Ráís of Ballabhi-pura who were succeeded by the Bala Ráís of Anhalwára Pattan. Their territories included the ports in the country of Láta (Lárike) on the gulf of Cambay. These ports were frequented by Arab trading vessels, and so the accounts given of the Balhará by their geographers, vague and meagre as they are, exceed all that is recorded by them of the other cotemporary king*doms.

There are copper records extant showing that in the first half of the fourth century grants of land in the neighbourhood of Jambúsír were made by the Gurjjara rájas and by the Chálukyas. The latter were of a Rajput tribe, and would then appear to have been making their way southwards to the scene of their subsequent power. In 812 A.D., just before the time of the merchant Sulaimán, a grant was made by the "Láteswara," that is, "King of Láta," but the names therein recorded have not been identified with those in any of the dynastic lists. Allowing for the omissions not unusual in such grants, there is a Dhruva who may correspond with the Dhruva Bhatta of Hwen Tsang.
************************************************** ********
Note:- How James Tod in above text reached at conclusion that Balhara affirms Ballabhi-pura seems wrong. Jat historians have mentioned about the genealogy of Balhara Jats and their origin. They are said to have been defeated by Bal clan and hence known as Balhara. Balhara are found at present in Jats and no other community. Members are advised to see Balhara clan history on Jatland Wiki at URL -

http://www.jatland.com/home/Balhara

Wkipedia at URL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balhara

Regards,

lrburdak

January 31st, 2008, 10:23 AM

Here is Kingdom of Balhara on Wikipedia on Wikipedia at URL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Balhara

Content reproduced is as under:

Kingdom of Balhara was a state situated in the upper course of Oxus River (present Amu Darya), and the foothills and valleys of Hindu Kush and Pamir Mountains (ancient Mount Imeon). Established ca. seventh century BC.

The inhabitants of Balhara were called Bulh in the fifth-seventh century AD Armenian geographical atlas ‘Ashharatsuyts’. The atlas describes them as an old settled, artisan and trading nation rather than nomadic tribe, inhabiting the area centered around the ancient major city of Balh (Balkh) that comprised roughly present northern Afghanistan and most of Tajikistan. According to Bulgarian historian Georgi Bakalov, Bulhi was probably the Armenian name of the ancient Bulgars. Historiographers in late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages such as Agathias of Myrina, Theophylact Simocatta, and Michael the Syrian also identify Mount Imeon as an early homeland of the ancient Bulgars.

The Bulhi contributed to the ethnogenesis of the present Tajiks in both Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and possibly the homonymous ethnic group of Balhara in India. Some of them migrated to Europe already BC.

Bakalov cites Byzantine historian Zacharias Rhetor as saying that the Burgars (presumably also identical to the Bulgars), had towns in the valleys of Northern Caucasus. They had also the territory along the north coast of Black Sea east of Axiacus River (Southern Bug) (Latin: Bulensii)[citation needed]. He concludes that they migrated to that region from Balhara. In Bakalov's view, the Bulgars established their first state there in 165 AD, a date he arrives at by summing the yeras of life or reign of all rulers listed in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans. The Nominalia claims that the first two rulers lived for 300 and 150 years respectively, which has led earlier historians to ignore these figures. Bakalov, however, is of the opinion that their legendary names should be interpreted as referring to entire dynasties, but the dates themesleves are accurate. The Kingdom of Old Great Bulgaria is known to have been established in that area in 632 AD. Among the successors of the latter are the medieval Bulgarian Empire and Volga Bulgaria, and present Bulgaria, Tatarstan, and Chuvashia.

See also

*Bulgars

*Old Great Bulgaria

*Mount Imeon

References

Eremian, Suren. Reconstructed map of Central Asia from ‘Ashharatsuyts’.
Shirakatsi, Anania, The Geography of Ananias of Sirak (Asxarhacoyc): The Long and the Short Recensions. Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Robert H. Hewsen. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1992. 467 pp. ISBN 9783882264852

Bakalov, Georgi. Little known facts of the history of ancient Bulgarians. Science Magazine. Union of Scientists in Bulgaria. Vol. 15 (2005) Issue 1. (in Bulgarian)

Dimitrov, Bozhidar. Bulgarians and Alexander of Macedon. Sofia: Tangra Publishers, 2001. 138 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 9549942295

Dobrev, Petar. Unknown Ancient Bulgaria. Sofia: Ivan Vazov Publishers, 2001. 158 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 9546041211

US Department of State. Background Note: Bulgaria. Historical Highlights.

Fries, Lorenz and Claudius Ptolemy. Tabula IX. Europae. In: Servetus, Michael. Opus Geographiae. Lyon, 1535.

Germanus, Nikolaus and Claudius Ptolemy. Geographia. Ulm: Lienhart Holle, 1482. (fragment)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Balhara"

narenderkharb

February 3rd, 2008, 04:07 AM

snandal1

February 4th, 2008, 01:04 AM

one bania told me today that jats were never in possession of land. it was bania who donated his land to jats, due to Sir Chhoturam. I opposed him that you banias are mostly black, at least more than half of them. They said that we are the agrani khatriyas. hence our agrasen is seen every where. while jats are not even able to maintain any dharmshala.

they claim even guptas were banias?????????????????????:):confused::eek::mad:: rolleyes::cool::p;):D:o:(

snandal1

February 4th, 2008, 01:16 AM

manne us nne bhai bahut samjhaya, ukk bhai ek baaniya jat nne 100 rappiye udhar deve tha aur us ka das guna byajj kha javve tha, aur aise karte karte aa sare banniye ne mhari sari zaminne kabza li.

chhoturam ne khali itna kiya ukk jo baniya apne muldhan tte jyada byaj le chuka se us ki zamin nne bhai vapis jat ne bahal kiya jaye.

amiteshv

February 4th, 2008, 01:34 AM

Good Work Laxman Ji

Bal is related to three different groups Guhilas,Solanki,Chalukaya along with Bal,Balhara,Balian etc .Important is existence of an early kingdom of Balhara in Bactria.There southward movement is well attested by Cunnigham,Harshwardhana records and Suleiman, Masudi narrations .

We can just correlate all this and find out the relationship of neo identities and clans with their parent Jat Stock.

What we need is a proper understanding and interpretation of primary data.

the people who dominate quatub area are Jats, mostly sehrawat and gandas of mehrauly. I feel that its the biggest shivling on earth and truly its gate points towards tien-shen mountains of himalayas.

its true shivling on vishnupad parvat. where when kanyaya was born and reached gokul, even lord siva reached there, to yashoda maiya, to get a glimpse of that incarnation of god vishnu.

amiteshv

February 7th, 2008, 03:24 AM

http://www.scribd.com/search?query=jats+india+&commit=search&adult=0

see The History of India as told by its own Historians-Vol I (http://www.scribd.com/doc/420274/The-History-of-India-as-told-by-its-own-HistoriansVol-I) II III IV

lots about jats in the books

history of india as mentioned by its own historians, never mentioned porus the Jat. who pitched elephant against horse of allexander. for the first time elephant was used in war.

greek hostorians repeatedly mention that allexander was cautioned that ek haathi naam ke janwar se bhi ladna padega use india me.

allexander turned back because there were so many hathis with nanda (nandal jats) of magdhan empire.

vivekkaliyar

February 8th, 2008, 10:25 AM

vivekkaliyar

February 8th, 2008, 10:29 AM

I
http://www.scribd.com/word/download/420274?extension=doc
II
http://www.scribd.com/word/download/420279?extension=doc
III
http://www.scribd.com/word/download/420280?extension=doc
IV
http://www.scribd.com/word/download/420282?extension=doc
V
http://www.scribd.com/word/download/420284?extension=doc