PDA

View Full Version : Forming an identity- Nonica Datta



ravichaudhary
February 13th, 2003, 09:27 PM
I am going to post her articles as separte topics. there is enough material to discuss.

What wish do about it, can I suggest, stay on the Jat bashing topic, unless someone has a better idea

Forming an identity
By Nonica Datta

WHAT does the term Jat mean or convey? Who are they and where did
they come from? For one, they live in Punjab, Rajputana and on the
banks of the Yamuna and the Ganges. They seem to have first appeared
during the seventh century in Sind, gradually moved into Punjab and
the Yamuna valley, and then settled in the Indo-Gangetic plains.
Early historical accounts of Sind indicate that the term Jat was
popularly applied to a `servile creature' tied to his qaum. The
Brahuis, Afghans and Persians resented this group which eked a poor
living out of agriculture and moved about the barren plains tending
and breeding camels. Early eighteenth-century accounts described the
non-Sikh Jats, who were dominant in the regions south and east of
Delhi after 1710, as `plunderers and bandits preying on the imperial
lines of communication'. They gained notoriety for attacking the
caravans on the important Delhi-Multan route passing through Mahim
(Meham), Jhajjar, Hansi, Sirsa, Hissar and Panipat, the qasbahs on
the fringes of their hinterland. Around the same time, they were
involved in colonising lands around the banks of the Yamuna river and
were gradually transformed into a wider category of warrior-
cultivators and semi-pastoralists. Clearly, they were not a rigid
caste, but a socially inclusive group with a remarkable capacity to
incorporate `pioneer peasant castes, miscellaneous military
adventurers and groups living on the fringes of settled agriculture'.

Geographically, the Jats were separated by the Yamuna river into two
groups. One of them, lived on the western side of the river Yamuna in
the area traditionally known as Hariana, famous for its cattle and
pasturage. It included the regions of Hissar and Rohtak.

The name has an ancient connotation. According to one version, Paras
Ram (incarnate of Harri) had killed the Chattris in a village called
Ramridth, four kos (miles) west of Jind, on twenty-one occasions.
Harri in Shastri (Sanskrit), means slain, and ana assembly. Hence the
name Hariana. Another view is the Hariana was named after Raja Hari
Chand. Some have even pointed out that the name is derived from a
wild wood called harriaban. Although Rajputs, Brahmans, Jats, Gujars,
Bakkals, Afghans and the Syeds lived in the region for centuries, the
popular Jat claim has been that Hariana, formerly a green forest, was
peopled and later brought under cultivation by their ancestors from
Bagar (Bikaner). According to them, Hariana was a Jat country.

Hissar, Rohtak, Gurgaon and Panipat, with their bhaiachara (co-
sharing) tenures and the khudkasht (peasant-proprietor), were part of
the Jatiyar or Jatiyat the country of the Jats. Here lived the
Deswali or Hele and the Dhe or Pachchade Jats. The Deswali claimed to
be the descendants of the `original' Jats settled in India about a
thousand years ago, while the Dhe were late arrivals who extended
their sphere of influence following the disintegration of the Mughal
Empire. In Rohtak, situated on the right bank of the Yamuna river,
the Deswali Jats appear to have settled some seven or eight hundred
years ago while the Dhe Jats, probably the descendants of immigrants
from Bagar, a tract just beyond the border of Bikaner, moved into the
western parts of the Hissar district around 1783 and took up the
lands abandoned after the terrible Chalisa famine of that year. Some
of them came from Bikaner and Nabha in the early nineteenth century.
The areas adjoining Bikaner and to the west of Bhiwani, such as
Hissar and Fatehabad, were called Bagar, a term meaning `dry country'
in common parlance. Those living in the region were descendants of
the itinerant Bagri Jats and the Bishnois.

The term Bagri was applied to a Hindu Rajput or Jat from the Bagar
region. According to local traditions, it was a corrupted form of
Nagri who claimed to be Chauhan Rajputs. The Godars and Punias, too,
considered themselves to be Bagri Jats. In general, they were neither
permanent settlers nor attached to the land which they abandoned in
seasons of drought. They kept camels for ploughing in favourable
seasons and for carrying goods to more secure parts during hard
times. The Bishnois were mainly Jats or carpenters who, having
discarded their caste names, called themselves Bishnois. They were
mobile armed groups who brought with them their own distinctive
cultures and infused dynamism in the areas they inhabited. While the
Bagri Jats forged cultural links and matrimonial alliances with the
Jats living in Rajasthan beyond the desert, the Deswali Jats did the
same with their counterparts in western UP living on the other side
of the Yamuna river. There were some Muslim Jats as well. They were
called `Mula' or `Mule' a few of whom were found in Rohtak. In the
Delhi territory, the term `Mula'/ `Mule', was applied to the Muslim
converts from the Jat caste only, frequently being used for those
whose `ancestors were forcibly circumcised by the Emperors, and not
converted by persuasion'. They called themselves Sheikhs. They
intermarried and smoked with the Hindu Jats.

The relationship of the Jats with the other groups was defined
through their got (clan) — an exogamous kin-group. The Deswalis were
members of twelve different gots which were further divided into at
least 137 sub-clans. Locally, they were organised under the tappa
system, a territorial and not a kinship grouping. The tappa was
controlled by the dominant landholding Jat clan group in a given area.

The Jat clans had different versions of territoriality denoting a
segmented lineage. Among the main clans in Rohtak, the stronghold of
the Ghatwalas (Maliks) was at Ahulana in the Gohana tahsil of the
district. The Dagars lived in Delhi and Gurgaon, while the Dahiyas
inhabited the northeastern border of Sampla and the adjoining portion
of the Sonepat tahsil in Rohtak and Delhi. The Rathi Jats were
concentrated in Gurgaon, Delhi and Rohtak, the Golias in Rohtak and
Karnal. They were indistinguishable from Gwalas and Ahirs in some
areas. The Dalals lived in the adjoining territory of Delhi, Hissar
and Jind. The Deswals were more numerous in Rohtak, Gurgaon and
Karnal; the Dhankars in Jhajjar (Rohtak); the Phogats in Jind and the
neighbouring areas of Gurgaon and Rohtak; and the Sangwans in Jind,
Hissar and Rohtak. The Bahniwals, who were settled mostly in the
Hissar division, moved up to the Lower Sutlej in Montgomery and
claimed to be Bhatti Rajputs. The Pawania, a clan from Hissar,
settled in Rohtak, Sirsa and Jind. The Nains, having lived in
Patiala, moved into Hissar and Delhi.

An important feature of Jat society in pre-colonial Hariana was the
absence of a political authority or a monarchical form. This was not
so in the case of either the Jat state of Bharatpur in the south or
the Sikh states of Jind and Patiala in the north. Generally speaking,
the Harianavi Jats, with their distaste for headmen and chiefs, had
their villages managed by their panch, a committee of elders (heads
of families). Hierarchy and dominance were shaped by the clans which
were, nonetheless, at loggerheads with one another. This also meant
that some gots wielded power and controlled economic resources, while
the less-privileged sections had to eke out a living in areas which
were not always conducive to agricultural production. In the long
run, this led to social and economic tensions within the Jat
community. For example, the Dahiyas were jealous of the Ghatwalas who
had access to water supply and better irrigation facilities. The
Bagri Jats, too, resented the prosperity that came the way of the
Deswali Jats.

During the eighteenth century, the Jats, like the rest of the mobile
pastoral and peasant groups in north India, formed armed roving
bands. This started with the rise of the Bharatpur kingdom which
introduced the Jats to military culture. During the rule of Begum
Samru, they were inducted into her irregular armies. George Thomas
recruited about 5000-6000 men into his army, including the Jats, paid
pensions to them and encouraged them to settle in Hariana. The
colonisation of land through pensions to sipahis contributed to
Hariana becoming a stable military labour market in the 1790s.
Eventually, Thomas raised an army of eight battalions of infantry
comprising 6000 men, fifty pieces of cannon, 1000 cavalry, and 1500
Rohillas along with 2000 men incharge of his different forts.

A new social order

The strengthening of the Brahman literati and the Banias, along with
the emergence of the Jats as sepoys and agriculturists, led to the
creation of a new social order in southeast Punjab. This had serious
implications. For one, the increasing hierarchical social order
resulted in serious tensions between the Jats, who were placed lower
down the caste hierarchy, and the upper castes. The Jat headmen and
their powerful allies began to challenge the dominance of Brahmans
and tried to scale the caste hierarchy through a conscious and
organised endeavour. They were in a much stronger position to do so
because of their landholdings, their key role in the village-based
economy, and their representation in the army.

The emergence of Jat identity needs to be related to the wider
changes in nineteenth century society: the decline of the warrior
culture, the rise of village-based peasant economy, the neutral
position of the East India Company towards the local peasant-pastoral
culture and the interrelated diminution of syncretic traditions.
Though the population of Rohtak-Hissar was predominantly rural, new
towns mushroomed by early twentieth century and old towns began
losing much of their importance. Hissar, an old prominent Muslim
qasbah and fortified town, became less important while Rohtak emerged
as an important market and recruiting centre. Strategically located
on the Delhi-Multan route, Hansi, Panipat, Mahim, Narnaul, Sirsa and
Jhajjar also diminished in importance as trading and sufi centres,
particularly due to the reduction of caravan trade after the 1760s.
Bhiwani, a town founded by the British, was gradually transformed
from an insignificant village to a `free market' in 1817. Thus, many
old cultural centres turned into mandis (market towns).

By the late nineteenth century a new culture pattern emerged in
southeast Punjab. The Jats emerged as a dominant economic group
simultaneous with the decline of the nawabi and the old Islamic
pastoralist culture. In Rohtak, the Hindus constituted 80 per cent of
the population by the early part of the twentieth century; the Hindu
Jats were about a third. In the mid-1880s, out of 511 estates in the
district, the Jats held about 366. By 1931, the Maliks numbered
20,000 males out of the total Jat male population of 142,764, owning
22 villages, while the Dahiyas, numbering about 20,000 males, held 16
villages. In the creation of Jat identity in southeast Punjab, these
two clans played a significant role initially. Later, many other
clans began playing their part in accelerating the process of Jat
identity formation. But despite the fact that the warrior culture had
been on the decline since the 1820s and community boundaries were
being more clearly defined thereafter as a result of the disruption
of a pluralist culture, the crystallisation of a self-conscious Jat
identity took place after 1880 and, more significantly, in the
context of the Arya Samaj movement.

(Excerpted from Forming an Identity: A Social History of the
Jats.Oxford University Press, Delhi).

The Tribune (Saturday Plus)
Saturday, July 3, 1999

ravichaudhary
February 13th, 2003, 09:38 PM
From: "adhin88 <adhin88@hotmail.com>" <adhin88@hotmail.com> Date: Thu Feb 13, 2003 4:33 amSubject: Re: Nonica Datta


I couldn't find about her, except this book review:

The American Historical Reviewbook review AsiaNonica Datta. Forming an Identity: A Social History of the Jats. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999. pp. viii, 228. $26.95.


In late colonial India, diverse clans of agriculturists in southeast Punjab (present-day Haryana) developed their diffuse social and cultural traditions into the strongly self-defined Jat qaum (community).

The process by which they, and their political and religious leaders, consolidated their syncretic cultures into a unified caste identity up through the 1930s forms the central narrative of Nonica Datta's well-researched book.

While substantial parts of her evidence come from British colonial accounts of Jats, she attributes little of this identity construction to the British. Rather, drawing heavily on vernacular literature, supplemented by her interviews with Jat participants, she concentrates on the agency of Jats themselves.

Her thoughtful work should cause scholars to reconsider the process of identity formation during the colonial period and will help us better understand subsequent social and political developments in Punjab.

1 Datta begins with a historical exploration of the variety of diverse and inclusive traditions followed by the social groups in Haryana who would become the Jats. She does not dwell on their movement into the region or their early sedentarization but rather focuses her narrative on the nineteenth century after they had become the dominant "warrior-cultivators and semi-pastoralists" (p. 11) there. Datta classifies their folk cultures into two distinct but overlapping types. Kachha traditions contained unorthodox and popular practices that centered on their "sense of common heroic descent" (p. 47) from—often martyred—nomadic warriors. Persistent in their identity was their distinctive practice of karewa, where widows or divorced wives cohabited with their brothers-in-law, thus retaining property within that male lineage.

"Reformist" traditions stressed "purity, frugality, truthfulness and monotheism" (p. 39); here, women appeared dangerous to male religiosity. Both kachha and reformist traditions combined Islamic and Hindu beliefs but simultaneously defined Jats in opposition to Brahmans and other Hindu urban groups, especially merchant money lenders.

While British colonial policies for military recruitment based on "martial race" theory enhanced the development of Jat identity, Datta argues that only with the coming of the Arya Samaj reform movement in the 1880s did Jats acquire the "textual sophistication, uniformity, and internal mechanisms for marshalling intellectual resources" (p. 48) into a unified community.


2 From that point into the early twentieth century, Datta convincingly explains, the Arya Samaj enabled Jat consolidation, but at the cost of distancing themselves from Muslims.

Unlike many other scholars, Datta regards the Arya Samaj not as the product of, or reaction to, Western influence on Indian society but rather as an indigenous religious movement evolving from preexisting Jat kachha and reformist traditions.

Arya Samaj leaders used print culture to produce Jat qaumi assertions of their Kshatriya and Arya status and created narratives about putative Jat historical unity.


3 Datta analyzes Jat political mobilization largely by following the careers of Jat leaders including Chhotu Ram (1881–1945) and Bhagat Phool Singh (1885–1942), both Arya Samajis. Chhotu Ram tried to make himself the "sole spokesman of Jat interests" (p. 93); his Zamindar League political party and his Jat Gazette newspaper sought to unite Jats through representing their common agriculturist interests to themselves and to the British colonial government.


Datta traces how Chhotu Ram forged political alliances with Muslim leaders, expressed through the Punjab Unionist Party, to counterbalance the high-caste Hindu dominated Indian National Congress.

Yet, the developing Jat popular identification of Muslims as "other," embodied in the career and reported martyrdom of Bhagat Phool Singh, ultimately shattered this Unionist political alliance.

Datta ends her narrative before the partition of Punjab between the new nations of India and Pakistan in 1947 and long before independent India divided Punjab still further, separating the Jat-dominated state of Haryana from Sikh-dominated East Punjab in 1966.


4 A major strength of Datta's book is her synthesis of a variety of primary materials, including rarely used vernacular and oral sources, into a study of the formation of Jat identity from the perspective of the Jats themselves.

In her introduction, she briefly surveys some variant interpretations of the social and political history of Punjab, but most of her analysis concentrates on her reading of her impressive sources.


Comparative developments elsewhere in Punjab (such as Jat conversion to Islam or Sikhism), or in India generally, do not receive much attention. Nevertheless, scholars familiar with existing scholarship about identity formation in Punjab during the colonial period will appreciate how insightfully Datta has used her primary sources to make her distinctive argument.


Scholars will also draw upon her work to inform their future studies of other social formations during the colonial period.


5 Michael H. Fisher Oberlin College


*** Ishwa on the Jat history list writes ::

But I believe this was already posted somewhere. It is clear from this review that "A major strength of Datta's book is her synthesis of a variety of primary materials, .... , but most of her analysis concentrates on her reading of her impressive sources", which made the reviewer believe that people 'will appreciate how insightfully Datta has used her primary sources to make her distinctive argument."


It's perhaps time to provide reviewers with more academic arguments, which may differ in the range of slightly to completely different from the one provided by Nonica Datta, in order to seek a more balanced
view.

regards,

Ishwa
******

Ravi adds:

- thus she is an authority and the American Historical review is a prestigious Journal, a "reliable' academic resource.

Her views will now be part of the accepted American university curriculum, if we do nothing.

ravichaudhary
February 16th, 2003, 12:11 AM
another book review
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99nov21/book.htm#top

A hardy people in search of new role
by D.R. Chaudhry


Forming an Identity — A Social History of the Jats by Nonica Datta. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Pages viii+228. Rs 450.


There are numerous theories about the origin of the Jats, ranging from their sudden appearance from Shiva’s locks to their lineage in the Aryan race. Most of these theories are absurd and unscientific, as correctly pointed out by Hukam Singh, a sober Jat historian. The origin of this community, as pointed out by K.R. Qanungo, an important historian of the Jats, is enveloped in obscurity, which the light of scientific research has yet to dispel.


The origin of the Jats, mercifully, is not the subject material of the book under review, though it deals with it in passing. The book deals with the Jat identity as it evolved and got shaped in rural southeast Punjab the (present-day Haryana). Three factors played the most important role in shaping this identity — the qaumi (community) narratives, the role of the Arya Samaj as a religious reform movement and the politics of Chhotu Ram through the medium of the Unionist Party.


Of late, there has been a spate of writings on Jat history, Jat identity and related things. The writers are largely from the Jat community itself. They have dished off tomes on various aspects, emphasising Jat diplomacy, Jat heroism, Jat glory and so on. Unfortunately, most of these are not rooted in credible historical evidence. No historiography, no theory of history there. The need to quote sources is dispensed with as a meaningless activity.


Conjectures and surmises to prop up preconceived notions constitute this brand of history. As a consequence, there is a lot of myth making in the name of Jat history. Some make hilarious reading. For instance, a theory has been propounded in all seriousness that the Jats are ancient rulers who once held sway all over the world and their descendants are found in all important races and the communities even today.


Thomas Mann, the Nobel laureate from Germany, descended from the Mann gotra of Jats while Thomas Moor, an English writer, belonged to the Mor gotra. The lineage of Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt is traced to the Nisir or Nasiar gotra. Risley is not far wrong when he observes that when a Jat runs wild it needs God to hold him back.

This kind of myth making, an attempt to weave a mystique around the Jat community, is in the opinion of this reviewer a response to the present agony of this community. The Jats dominate the rural hinterland in a radius of about 300 km from the national Capital. They control fertile land and have hegemonic position in rural society. But they stand marginalised in Indian politics thanks to their bankrupt leadership. Even the Yadavas, an intermediate farming caste like the Jats, have done better.


When faced with a grim present and an uncertain future, the community ideologues strenuously try to discover a glorious past — an imagined past, as historians call it — as a defence mechanism. But this defence does more harm than good. More on this later. In the present socio-cultural and historical environment, rendered humid by mythmakers, the book under review comes like a whiff of fresh air. It is a sober, balanced and well-researched work on the social history of the Jats in the present-day Haryana.


The custom of “karewa” (marital alliance with the widow of one’s brother), local cults, deities like Gugga, Teja, Ramdeoji, etc. saints, “pirs”, tombs, sufi shrines, etc. kept the Jats distinctly from the Brahminical social order.

The Brahmin has never been the object of veneration among the Jats. “Pandit” has been a term of light banter and mockery in rural Haryana. The popularity of narratives like “swang”, “kissa”, “katha”, etc. dealing with the heroic deeds of Allah-Uddal, Gugga Pir, Bhure Badal, etc. helped evolve a distinct identity. There was nothing Vedic or Puranic about this.


Two religious traditions played an important role in shaping Jat identity. The Jats had no patience for the intricate symbols and elaborate practices of orthodox Hinduism. They described their religion as “kachha mazhab” — simple and earthy — as contrasted with the “pucca mazhab” of the high castes.

Second, the reformist tradition in the Jat community had a pronounced non-Brahminical orientation. There was nothing sacred about the Ganga or the Yamuna for them. Idols and temples were emblems of superstition and the Brahmins had no role to play in their rituals and ceremonies. The Naths, followers of Gorakhnath, ate meat and drank alcohol. They had a good following among the Jats in some areas.


It can thus be deduced from the community narratives, religious practices and reformist tradition that they were very much part of the lower rung of the Hindu social order and had no illusion of belonging to the twice-born Hindu varnas till the advent of the Arya Samaj which tried to engineer a basic shift in the Jat psyche.


Whatever be the later-day notions about the superiority of the Jat “quom”, Jats were stigmatised by the higher castes. The Brahmins treated the Jats as Shudras and denied them the right to wear the sacred thread. The Jats were largely free from the Brahminical orthodoxy and caste rigidity. The Arya Samaj’s attack on Brahminical rituals, orthodoxy, superstitions and caste rigidity had a natural appeal for the Jats and they easily took to it.


The Samaj’s act of investing them with the sacred thread gave them the “dvija” status, putting them on par with the twice-born castes. Its advocacy of widow remarriage was in tune with the practice of “karewa”. The religious reform movement had a powerful impact on the Jat community and went a long way in sharpening the sense of the Jat identity.
The treatment of the Arya Samaj in the book as an important factor in fostering the Jat identity is eminently lucid and highly convincing, though there can be two ways of looking at the nature of identity promoted by the Samaj.


The treatment of Chhotu Ram in the book as an ideologue of the Jat peasantry and champion of its interests is laudable. There are two images of Chhotu Ram, two perceptions completely opposed to each other. One image portrays him as a saviour and a messiah of peasants. The other depicts him as a loyalist and a collaborator of the colonial regime (a “toddy bachha”). His role has been mystified and decontextualised by those who treat him as a messiah of the peasantry. In the process, Chhotu Ram has been appropriated by the Jats and has been reduced to a totem of the Jat clan. His detractors do him grave injustice when they portray him as a traitor since he was not part of the national mainstream. To extend this logic further, Jotiba Phule, B.R. Ambedkar and Ramasamy Naicker — the great crusaders for the uplift of the dalits in Indian society — too could be dubbed traitors as none of them was a part of the Indian freedom struggle. (Naicker organised a protest demonstration on August 15, 1947. When the dawn of independence was being hailed all over the country, he and others of his social standpoint believed that the transfer of power in the then existing social arrangement would only benefit the higher castes to the detriment of the dalits).
Nonica Datta successfully steers clear of the two positions about Chhotu Ram. Her attempt is aimed at relocating his politics in its proper historical context. In his time the Jat peasants were victims at the hands of higher castes, especially the usurious Mahajans. They were portrayed as an ill-bred, ill-cultured lot, a sort of semi barbarians. Chhotu Ram exhorted peasants to shed their inferiority complex and fatalistic outlook and become assertive and self-confident.


As an important Minister in the then Unionist Party government in Punjab, he did a lot to improve the economic status of the peasants through numerous legislative measures. He helped them acquire self-confidence and self-respect. He actively cultivated the army lore in the Jat peasantry, investing it with the halo of a martial race. His image as a patron saint, as rightly concluded by the writer, played an important role in the organisation of the Jats as a self-conscious community.


There is a general agreement among historians that the Jats had the status of Shudras in the Brahminical social order in the past, even lower than that at some stage. According to Irfan Habib, they constituted an ostracised community at the level of Chandalas in the seventh and eighth century Sind; they are described as Shudras in the 10th century and as “low Vaishyas” in the 17th.


The book under review provides ample evidence to show that the Jats were very much part of the lower strata in the caste hierarchy and were looked down upon by the higher castes like the Brahmins and Rajputs.
Like other depressed castes, the Jats too had an aspiration to rise in the caste hierarchy through the process of Sanskritisation. This process got a fillip at the hands of the Arya Samaj. The Samaj tried to enhance their caste status through the wearing of the sacred thread, the “yajna”, Gayatri mantra and other Vedic symbolism. This triggered a desire for caste mobility among the Jats and led to theorisation of the Jats being ancient rulers, their glory, their valour, and their diplomacy and so on.


If the Jats are the ancient rulers with a “dvija” caste status, “why are they now so desperate to be included among the OBCs? (This has already happened in two states and there is a similar demand in other states with a sizeable Jat population.


Several eminent Jats of Haryana in their memoranda submitted to the Backward Classes Commission set up by the Haryana government in 1990 have eloquently pleaded for the grant of a lower caste status to there community on the ground that there is a ruling of the Punjab High Court, Lahore, declaring the Jats as Shudras; that al-Bruni found them to be Shudras; that they share their “hukkah pani” with lower castes like the Kumhar, Lohar, etc. and not with higher castes like the Brahmins and Rajputs; that they in many cases in villages live in one small room which is also shared by cattle and so on. How to explain this metamorphosis in the perception of the Jats about their caste status? Was the Arya Samaj’s act of introducing the Jats to the Vedic world of the sacred thread and the sacred fire a mirage?


The writer refers to some negative traits of the Arya Samaj movement like its puritanism, anti-feminism and anti-Muslim bias, but in the opinion of this reviewer, it was in the field of caste hierarchy that the Jats got a real drubbing at the hands of the Samaj. Nonica quotes Colonel A. Pressey, an English army officer, who had observed that “the Jat was an unorthodox Hindoo and had no right to assume a badge which would enroll him among the ‘twice-born’ races of Hindoo mythology”. And he banned the wearing of the sacred thread by Jat soldiers in his regiment. How true!


The Arya Samaj bred a misplaced sense of enhanced caste status among the Jats. As a consequence, they were estranged from the lower castes to which they really belonged and the higher castes would not own them. So they were neither fish nor fowl. This explains their presented dilemma and they are trying to wriggle out of the predicament. They are keen to revert back to the slot they belonged to in the caste hierarchy of the Hindu social order. Better late than never.


But in the process they have done enough harm to themselves. None would disagree with the writer about the role played by the Arya Samaj in shaping the Jat identity but what is really important is the content of this identity. In fact, the Samaj obviated the possibility of the Jats emerging as a leader of the OBCs in the movement of social justice in our times. Rather, they were on the other side of the fence in the anti-Mandal agitation, at least in Haryana. The Jats perhaps needed a Phule or a Naicker or an Ambedkar from their own ranks more than a Dayanand. The process of shaping the Jat identity could have been much more constructive and healthy in that situation.
The writer, as already observed, avoids two extremes in the case of Chhotu Ram but there is a centrist position which, while acknowledging his great contribution to the well-being of the peasantry in the composite Punjab, critically evaluates the after-effects of his policies on Haryana society. Chhotu Ram dominated the political landscape of the Haryana region and he was not a part of the freedom struggle. This, it is averred, acted as a check on the fuller participation of the people in the national movement. This also deprived them of the higher level of socio-political consciousness, which could have been theirs if Chhotu Ram had provided them a lead in the fight against colonial rule.
Second, it is argued that since he was a pillar of a party, which believed in seeking concessions from the colonial rulers by collaborating with them, this mind set is responsible for the “Aya Ram, Gaya Ram” culture in Haryana’s politics in the modern times. The first contention lacks in substance. Bihar was in the forefront of the freedom struggle but this has not bettered the lot of the people of Bihar in any way in post-independence India. Rather, the poor Biharis today have become national “kaameens” — the hewers of wood and drawers of water all over the country. What is important in the struggle is the social composition of its leadership and its class content.


As regards the naked opportunism and the near absence of any ideological commitment in the political behaviour of the Haryana political elite, it would be unfair to hold Chhotu Ram’s legacy alone responsible for it. Many factors in the historical growth of Haryana society have contributed to its spiritual atrophy, moral decay and political degeneration. But all the same, the contribution of the Unionist Party’s politics in this context cannot be brushed aside lightly. This aspect needs to be researched dispassionately and objectively.
Nonica Datta has deftly dealt with the intricate theme of forming an identity of a complex community like the Jats in the present-day Haryana. Her observations, leaving aside local variations, apply equally well to the Jats of other regions around Delhi — namely, the western UP, Delhi dehat and the adjoining areas of Rajasthan as this zone constitutes one cultural unit. While answering some, her treatment raises a few new questions. And here lies the real efficacy and utility of the book under review. It can act as a launching pad for further research.


It is a must for all those who wish to know or work on the social history of the Jats. It deserves wide circulation but its price is a deterrent for an individual to buy it. Its paper- back edition would put it within the reach of individual buyers.


************

Who is Dr Chaudry ??