PDA

View Full Version : Origin of the word 'Jat'



urmiladuhan
January 5th, 2003, 02:59 PM
REFERENCE:Aryan Tribes and The Rigveda by B.S Dahiya (I.R.S)



In the Rigveda, the Aryan people, their clans, and even their gods and leaders are called "Jata/Sujata. Infact the word Jata/Sujata appears more frequently than the word Arya. Normal meanings given to the word Jata are: born, all that is born, famous, manifested etc. Rigveda (RV) (3/8/5) contains "Jato-Jayate" which is rendered as "sprung up, he rises" by Griffith, "famous" by Dyanand. The difference between Jata and Sujata is one of degree or respect only. Sujata means noble Jata. Otherwise they are common, equal, democratic and mainly settled agriculturist Aryan soldiers. Agni is called Jata (RV V/15/4). Agni is called Sujata in RV VIII/74/7 etc. Indira is called Jata (RV III/32/10;V/30/4)Indira is called Adhi Jata which Dyanand renders as 'supreme ruler'- RV X/153/2).

akdabas
January 6th, 2003, 06:39 AM
Very educational. I don't know if we can prove these different theories about the JATS origin though.

Keep up the good work.

dkumar
January 6th, 2003, 10:20 AM
gr8 piece of information!

Thanks a lot to Urmila Ji, Rajinder Ji for sharing the information!

amar0974
January 6th, 2003, 11:16 AM
Very good Information.

ravichaudhary
January 8th, 2003, 02:49 AM
Urmilla

Could you post the full text of the verses,



Ravi Chaudhary

ravichaudhary
January 8th, 2003, 02:49 AM
Urmilla

Could you post the full text of the verses,



Ravi Chaudhary

urmiladuhan
January 8th, 2003, 04:03 AM
Ravi,

Just off my head, i think only the Rigveda reference in numbers was given in the book. But let me check.

urmiladuhan
January 8th, 2003, 04:10 AM
Ashok Kumar Dabas (Jan 05, 2003 08:09 p.m.):
Very educational. I don't know if we can prove these different theories about the JATS origin though.

Keep up the good work.


Ashok jee,
Waisae deikhein toh, there are very few scientific laws in this age of science too- rest are all theories. For 300 years people were firmly believing Newton until Einstein came along. Just because there is no unshakable proof should not mean it should not be considered at all, i think. More the theories, more is the indication that people are/have been thinking about it.

ravichaudhary
January 8th, 2003, 04:34 AM
Urmila (Jan 07, 2003 05:33 p.m.):
Ravi,

Just off my head, i think only the Rigveda reference in numbers was given in the book. But let me check.


********
Which book are you refering to ?

If you could provide as much detail as possible , I would be very appreciative.

Where is the quote from S. Dayanand coming from. Book, publisher, ISBN.

What exactly does he say- verbatim.

The RV contains words like "Jata: like "Jatavedas"

Why do you take that as a reference to Jats ??

What you have drawn our attention will be crticised, especially if I use it in an open Forum, so I would like to have my base a little solid.

Thanks in advance and

Best regards

urmiladuhan
January 10th, 2003, 12:52 AM
********



Which book are you refering to ?

*********

Book: Aryan Tribes and The Rigveda (a search for identity) by B.S Dahiya. The book is available from Dahinam Publishers 16-B Sujan Singh Park Sonepat (Haryana)- India.







If you could provide as much detail as possible , I would be very appreciative.







Where is the quote from S. Dayanand coming from. Book, publisher, ISBN.

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

The Rigveda have been translated by Dyanand and the reference here is probably to the translated verse referred as 3/8/5 in Dyanands book.





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

What exactly does he say- verbatim.

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





The RV contains words like "Jata: like "Jatavedas"







Why do you take that as a reference to Jats ??

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

As the author mentions in the book, a lot of the times, Jata is used as a noun and not as a verb or an adjective, for eg., 6/29/6 or 5/32/11. Also in Dahiya's book p-37, Indra is called 'VRTRAHA'(-means killer of VITR) among the Jatas (RV 3/31/11). There are many more references in the book supporting Jatas as noun.

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

What you have drawn our attention will be crticised, especially if I use it in an open Forum, so I would like to have my base a little solid.



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



I have limited knowledge on the historical renderings about Jats and otherwise in general, to be able go on public boards on the topic. But if you would like, you are welcome to borrow this particular book from me. My e mail address is: uduhan@yahoo.com

chashokverma
January 14th, 2003, 11:56 AM
the word Jat should not be confused with Jat (means Jati ). the verses as referred are related to Jati not Jats as known now.

Could you answer

1. If the Jats were known in Vedic period where did they then disappeared in Ramayana or Mahabharat period?

2 . Could you name any King or Rishi who was Jat and mentioned in Vedas?

3. Was the system of caste as existing now has any similarity with the system as existing during Vedas?

4. Why are then Brahmans show natural hostility towards Jats?

5. Then why the Jats are not included in list of Chchatriyas by the Bahamans?

6. Why most of the gotras as existing does not match with the gotras of Brahmans? Whereas the gotra of lower castes do match.

The Vedic concept of classification of humanity was based on Varna (four) and Kula (gotra) within the Aryan folds only. There was no concept of castes as existing now. The non Aryans were referred as Asuras, Sakas, Hunas, Mlechas etc. Even the followers of lord Shiva, with whom Jats have some links have been referred with hostility. There are mentions of many battles fought between the ganas of Shiva and so called Vedic Aryans. The last famous battle was fought between Banasur and Lord Krishna near Santipur now Bayana in Rajasthan. The result of the battle was that a new line of mixed race was created with the marriage of grandson of lord Krishna with the daughter of Banasur and the King; Vajra was born. The Rajyabhishek of King Vajra was done by the Pandavas in Indraprasth (now Delhi). As per the genealogy of Bhatis of Rajasthan there was one more brother of king Vajra who migrated to Afghanistan and established his empire with capital being Kandhar.

Many of the present days Jat gotras trace their origin to these two brothers. The fact is that they were not considered Chchatriyas by the Brahmins are well documented in their books. They have been mentioned as asuras.

The image of lord Shiva as envisaged by the Brahmans being Jangali, rude, straight forward, stupid being to the extent of swallowing the Vish (poison) to save the so called Vedic Brahmans, sturdy and many more is more associated to Jats.

The fact is, the ground for the rise of Buddhism religion was prepared by the Lord Krishna. He brought in revolutionary changes in the Brahman religion to the extent of opening it to the Shudras.

The origin of Jats lies in the politics of Mahabharat. The battle was fought between 56 clans of Yayati ( as per Col Tod Judah of Jews probably are the same as Jadus; one of he descendents of Yayati ). These clans were divided into two groups Asuras and Chchatriyas. The Asuras were those who were not considered Chchatriyas as they had no Brahman gurus. Chchatriyas were those who had Brahman gurus like Pandavs, Vrishins and Jadus. Religion played politics. The descendents of Yayati and with Brahamas were the winners. The lord Krishna played a crucial role to have all sections of societies including shudras together. Due to his great political and relegious achievements he was given the status of Avatar by the Brahmans. Lord Krishna himself was not the king as this concept was not followed in his clanship who followed the political system of republics. Something akin to khap system of Jats today.

As the Brahmans were under pressure from the
Chchatriyas (the descendents of Yayati like Asuras) to reform the religion they gave up and opened the religion to Shudras by writing Sri madbhagawat Purana. Known as fifth Vedas. But Bahamans never liked it. The result was the descendents of those Chchatriyas were relegated to the status of Asuras just after the three generations from the lord Krishna. The Jats of today are the descendents of these so called Asuras (there is no need to take certificates from the Brahmans).

In the written records the Jat word was first used by the Arab invaders in Sindh in 7/8th centaury. They gave the name of Jats to those warrior like people wearing Jatta (long hairs like Sikhs. also remember ur fore fathers wearing long hairs), Long black coat like Nihangs, wearing arms and most dangerous and fierce fighters with migratory habits. In fact today’s Balochs in Pakistan were the first one to be refered as Jats. Thereafter like word Hindu this word was applied to all such people residing in Sindh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh and UP. This word thereafter has been used by all Muslim invaders and historians like Babar, Taimur Lang etc. Like the word Hindu it also got popularized and is being now used in terms of caste.

There is just no other origin of word Jats then as given above.

urmiladuhan
January 14th, 2003, 11:59 PM
Ashok jee,
My interest in history of Jats is very recent- about a month old.
I hope someone authoritative on this subject will be able to answer your question. I am merely quoting from a book that i happened to read during my search for my gotra's origin.

ravichaudhary
January 19th, 2003, 12:44 AM
1. Origin of the word 'Jat' - Urmilla


REFERENCE: Aryan Tribes and The Rigveda (a search for identity) by B.S Dahiya. The book is available from Dahinam Publishers 16-B Sujan Singh Park Sonepat (Haryana)- India


In the Rigveda, the Aryan people, their clans, and even their gods and leaders are called "Jata/Sujata. Infact the word Jata/Sujata appears more frequently than the word Arya. Normal meanings given to the word Jata are: born, all that is born, famous, manifested etc. Rigveda (RV) (3/8/5) contains "Jato-Jayate" which is rendered as "sprung up, he rises" by Griffith, "famous" by Dayanand.

The difference between Jata and Sujata is one of degree or respect only. Sujata means noble Jata. Otherwise they are common, equal, democratic and mainly settled agriculturist Aryan soldiers.

Agni is called Jata (RV V/15/4). Agni is called Sujata in RV VIII/74/7 etc. Indira is called Jata (RV III/32/10;V/30/4)
Indira is called Adhi Jata which Dyanand renders as 'supreme ruler'- RV X/153/2).

As the author mentions in the book, a lot of the times, Jata is used as a noun and not as a verb or an adjective, for eg., 6/29/6 or 5/32/11. Also in Dahiya's book p-37, Indra is called 'VRTRAHA'(-means killer of VITR) among the Jatas (RV 3/31/11). There are many more references in the book supporting Jatas as noun.

- Urmilla




****************
Reponses

****************
Ashok> The word Jat should not be confused with Jat (means Jati). The verses as referred are related to Jati not Jats as known now.
Could you answer?
1. If the Jats were known in Vedic period where did they then disappeared in Ramayana or Mahabharat period?
***********
Ravi> they did not disappear. The composers of those epics did not record them or give them their due.
The epic themselves are replete with Jats Gotras, starting with Ram Chandra ji, whose Gotra is Kukutsa.
This is not the first time in History that a people’s history has been wiped clean.
As far as I now there am one dubious reference in the Mahabharata in the Karna parva refers to the Jartas, who are Jats, in a derogatory sense? This is late 18th century interpolation.
That is why I use the term reconstruction.
**********


Ashok> 2. Could you name any King or Rishi who was Jat and mentioned in Vedas?
Ravi> Attri, Bharadwaj, Kashyap, Gaur, Budhwar,

King> Yayati,
Some clans, Clans, Yadu, Puru, Turvasu, Anu, Druyhu- the panch jatah. Sivi, Shivi,
These people are also described in Zoroastrian literature as honourable " ZaZats" or Yazats" -pp 386 HS Pauria

Ashok> 3.Was the system of caste as existing now has any similarity with the system as existing during Vedas?
Ravi> the Vedas did not know the caste system. There is none, not one single reference to caste in the Vedas.
Caste develops later, the Manusmrithi is formed, and there is an online version too. Search for Manusmrithi.

SEE the link below
http://www.hindubooks.org/manusmriti.pdf
The Manusmrithi is supposedly dated 2nd century AD. I think it is a much later document, probably composed, written and re written from the 8th century on.
The Vedas are supposed to be pure untouched documents. I doubt this. There were kept by the followers of Manu, who over time, hoarded them, and refused to allow others to hear or read them.
The Jats lost the tradition, and probably those who knew the Vedas joined the Brahmins, which is why you probably find common gotra with Brahmins- Gaur, Bharadwaj, Attri
The Manusmrithi became the manual for the Brahmin- Rajput combine to oppress the rest of Indian society. Those who did not agree with the Followers of Manu, or the Warriors of Manu, got marginalized and denigrated as Shudras. In UP/Haryana this could not occur, as we were in greater numbers, and we maintained our political and economic power.

Ashok> 4 Why are then Brahmans show natural hostility towards Jats?
Ravi >Because of the Manusmrithi. They show hostility to everyone including Jats. In the south they hate all non-Brahmins. There is a community called the Lingayats or Veerashaiv- ists in Karnatak. They are followers of Saivism, and do not accept the Brahman at all, and guess what- they are hated by Brahmans.
The Lingayats- I suspect are Jats; the Y and J are interchangeable- e.g Yaswant, Jaswant
they follow our customs, widow re marriage, Shiva Puja, and see
The yahoo group Jat history Site
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/
Message # 70 & 73

Ashok> 5. Then why the Jats are not included in list of Chchatriyas by the Bahamans?

Ravi >As mentioned above, the intention was to first denigrate the Jats, then marginalize the, If the Jats fell from power, trust me they would have been oppressed, as they were in Rajasthan and in other places. In most places they do not even know themselves as Jats anymore

Ashok> 6. Why most of the gotras as existing does not match with the gotras of Brahmans? Whereas the gotra of lower castes do match.
Ravi> The gotras of the Brahmans are imaginary gotras, mythical taken from the Rishi's of the Vedas.

Low caste high caste is a manusmrithian Brahmin construct. Best to dump it.

We Jats have never accepted the Manusmrithi Brahmin castr system. Let us keep it that way.
There is some question whether the brahmins were Aryans at all.
Prof HS Pauria writes- quoting Pargiter" observes:_ Brahmanism was not ab ibnito an Aryan or Aila institution, and the earliest Brahmins were connected with non - Aryan people. The Ailas were their own sacrificers, and in fact they aryanised the Brahmins as they did other people."
F E Pargiter" Ancient Indian Historical tradition._ I think Motilal Banarsi Das, New Delhi the publisher
Those are jat Gotras.
The Brahmins set themselves up later as a caste, and over the centuries established their position, accepting many non-Brahmins into their Brahmin Castes.
They will deny this and claim pure decent from the original 8 or so rishis of the Vedas.

***********
Ashok> The Vedic concept of classification of humanity was based on Varna (four) and Kula (gotra) within the Aryan folds only.
Ravi> Correction> the Vedas did not know caste. There is an on line version of the rig Veda, for those not in India. In India you can pick up a copy, and I will suggest those who can should do so.
For those who cannot see the URL below.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/
There was no concept of castes as existing now. The non-Aryans were referred as Asuras, Sakas, Hunas, Mlechas etc.
Ravi> Asura is an Aryan concept. With the split between those who followed the Barhmanic way and those who did not, the changes happened.
Asura became a dirty word in late Barhmanic times, and Deva took its place. In the Iranian context- Zend Avesta, it is the other way around- Deva is a dirty word, and Asura is a good word, The Parsis use Ahura - the 'S' changes to 'H '
*********
Ashok> Even the followers of lord Shiva, with whom Jats have some links, have been referred with hostility. There are mentions of many battles fought between the ganas of Shiva and so-called Vedic Aryans.
Ravi> that is correct. See the Manusmrithi and the hostility to the other communities in the south.
*************
Ashok>The last famous battle was fought between Banasur and Lord Krishna near Santipur now Bayana in Rajasthan.
The result of the battle was that a new line of mixed race was created with the marriage of grandson of lord Krishna with the daughter of Banasur and the King; Vajra was born. The Pandavas in Indraprasth (now Delhi) did the Rajyabhishek of King Vajra. As per the genealogy of Bhatis of Rajasthan there was one more brother of king Vajra who migrated to Afghanistan and established his empire with capital being Kandhar.
Many of the present days Jat gotras trace their origin to these two brothers. The fact is that they were not considered Chchatriyas by the Brahmins are well documented in their books. They have been mentioned as Asuras.


Ravi> There is as semantic problem here.
The Warriors of Manusmrithi, set up a stem of 4 Varna, or 4 castes, and anyone who did not agree with was called shudra.
So you should not be surprised to see Jats mentioned as kshatriyas, for the Jats never accepted the system, and yes in their Manusmrithi literature the Jats would be addresses with denigratory terms.
Those Jats, who accepted their hegemony, were called Rajputs, and Kshatriyas, but the other Brahmin was considered 10 or 100 times superior to the Kshatriya.
They clamed residence in Brhamvarta- between the Sarasvati and the Dhrishvati- (modern Haryana). Outside Brahmavarta is Mlechha Desa, where the people are Mlechha, Asura, Rakshas, Sudras, the normal low down lot.
According to the Manusmrithi, the "good" king is exhorted by his Brahmins to go into the territory of the Mlechas, i.e. outside Brahmavarta, and ESTABLISH the Chautuvarna Society, and having done so, bring the defeated people into the society as Chandals.
So this concept is many later Brahminical constructs, probably in medieval times, and refined as they went along.
***********


Ashok> The image of lord Shiva as envisaged by the Brahmans being Jangali, rude, straight forward, stupid being to the extent of swallowing the Vish (poison) to save the so called Vedic Brahmans, sturdy and many more is more associated to Jats.
Ravi> we have been through this.

*************
Ashok> is, the ground for the rise of Buddhism religion was prepared by the Lord Krishna. He brought in revolutionary changes in the Brahman religion to the extent of opening it to the Shudras.
Ravi> the Krishna story I suspect is a late story, when the Brahmins could not go against the Krishna deity, As late as 11th century, Krishna was being recorded as the son of shudra Jat Family( Alberrnui's India- Alberuni could have got this information only from the Brahmin priests, who were also his source for information on Science etc that he wrote about in his book)

The more likely historical truth is that Krishna was the head, chief, of the Andhak Vrishi gana, or Janpad, or republic or Khap, and was a jat and got deified later, as did Ram Dasrathi.
Even the Bhagvat Gita is supposed to be a second century BCE creation, according to VD Mahajan's " Ancient history of India"
*************
Ashok> The origin of Jats lies in the politics of Mahabharat.
The battle was fought between 56 clans of Yayati ( as per Col Todd Judah of Jews probably are the same as Jadus; one of he descendents of Yayati ). These clans were divided into two groups Asuras and Chchatriyas. The Asuras were those who were not considered Chchatriyas as they had no Brahman gurus. Chchatriyas were those who had Brahman gurus like Pandavas, Vrishins and Jadus. Religion played politics. The descendents of Yayati and with Brahamas were the winners. The lord Krishna played a crucial role to have all sections of societies including shudras together. Due to his great political and religious achievements the Brahmans gave him the status of Avatar. Lord Krishna himself was not the king as this concept was not followed in his clanship that followed the political system of republics. Something akin to khap system of Jats today.
As the Brahmans were under pressure from the
Chchatriyas (the descendents of Yayati like Asuras) to reform the religion they gave up and opened the religion to Shudras by writing Sri madbhagawat Purana. Known as fifth Vedas. But Bahamans never liked it. The result was the descendents of those Chchatriyas were relegated to the status of Asuras just after the three generations from the lord Krishna. The Jats of today are the descendents of these so-called Asuras (there is no need to take certificates from the Brahmans).

Ravi> a good insight.
If I may add, the Mahabharata is a late creation.
Initially there is supposed to be the" Jai" a short story of 8000 shlokas, then the Bharat or 24, 000 shlokas, and finally the bloated Mahabharata, which included all the known literature, stories, legends , you name it. The invading people, the Chinas, the Sakas, the Huns.
The creation of this Mahabharata continued right upto the 19th century AD.
So it is full of stories, and data, Sifting through it is a nightmare.
The MBH does not mention the Jats, except as I said above in one dubious reference.
It would appear that the composers , had decided that no mention the Jats would be made, and the very existence of the Jats was wiped out from the memory of Man.
The history was incorporated as a Non Jat history, and as a Brahminical- Manusmrithi type of History.
To get our history the MBH will have to re written from a Jat perspective, and not a Brahminical perspective.
The MBH is full of Jat gotras and clans.

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


Ashok> In the written records the Jat word was first used by the Arab invaders in Sindh in 7/8th centaury. They gave the name of Jats to those warrior like people wearing Jatta (long hairs like Sikhs. also remember our fore fathers wearing long hairs), Long black coat like Nihangs, wearing arms and most dangerous and fierce fighters with migratory habits. In fact today’s Balochs in Pakistan were the first one to be referred as Jats. Thereafter like word Hindu this word was applied to all such people residing in Sindh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh and UP. All Muslim invaders thereafter have used this word and historians like Babar, Taimur Lang etc. Like the word Hindu it also got popularized and is being now used in terms of caste.
There is just no other origin of word Jats then as given above.

Ravi> Another good insight.

You might also wish to consider that the word Hindu did not exist before the Arabs showed up., and then it became common.

When they clashed with the Jats, they knew them as Jats, for the Jats so called themselves, and they recorded them as Jats in their Journals.

The Indian recorders, were on a - socio -religious, and sought to wipe out the name of the Jats.

And it is rarely found, but found it is.

Thus in the 5th century AD the Grammarian Chandragomin writes

" Ajay Jarto Hunan, " - " The Jats defeated the Huns"

in reference to Yashodharman's Virk's victory over the Huns, where also the SarvKhap of Haryana supported Yashodharman- a fellow Jat.

So the Jats knew themselves as Jats in the 5th century.

Earlier we find the Inscription of Raja Sailindra, referring to himself as a" JIT", a variant of Jat.

See link below:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/42

Around the start of the common era, and earlier we find the Kushans, calling themselves Jats, or Jut, and the Chinese calling them, juti.

Around 5h century BC we find the great Grammarian Panini called them Jats. He writes-

"Jata Jhata sanghate" - " the confederacy ( sangh, Gana, Khap) of the Jats".

Panini gives " Jata" as one of the roots in hid Dhatu path of his Asthadyahi. The word Jat is then a root word.


In the Nirukta of Yaksha, another great Grammarian, a predecessor of Panini by many generations, is the phrase- "Jatya atnaro." The nomadic Jats.
-

Yaksha also refers to a much earlier Guru Sakatyana, from whom such terms came down to him.


Jat is also the name of a General of Kartikeya in the Deva- Asura wars.


There is also a dynasty of Gut or Guti ruling Sumeria( ancient Iraq, Turkey) in 2200 BC.


So what you is the mixture of a fair amount or fact and fiction.

If our purpose is to show that the word Jat existed, is ancient times, going back to 2200 BC, we have been able to do that.


Where we get mixed up is the literature of fantasy of the Followers of Manusmrithi, whose perspective is tainted, and biased in their own favour.


You have go beyond that, identify the facts, gather them and then reconstruct our history.


Another group where all this is being debated is the group>

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/

Join and participate

Let us keep exploring

Ravi
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

chashokverma
January 29th, 2003, 09:45 PM
dear Ravi ji

Thanks for valuable information.

Let me give some more inputs. The Rishis Gotras, like Bharadwaj, Kashyap etc which you have mentioned are not of vadic period but pre Mahabharat period. In fact they are the branches created out of the descendants of Yayati. So they had the blood of a warrior. Please refer Sri-Mad Bhagavat Purana, which gives the genealogy of all the Rishis you have mentioned. In fact Parshuram himself was the descendant of Yayati.

Today's Brahmans also have two separate groups. One Like Mishras, Pandeys etc are the original Brahmans of vadic period. Other groups are of those like Bhradwaj who came as Purohits to Warriors kings and later on assimilated into Brahman folds. This assimilation in fact happened during Lord Krishna;s time. Ved Vyasji was not from the branch of Vedic period. The feeling of distinction is still visible between these two groups of Brahmans. In fact they avoid marriages.

I have a serious objection to finding the roots of Jats purely repeat purely by matching the words.

If that is the approach then The Jatavs (Schedule castes) and The jats should be from the same family?????But are they?????????

You punch a word Jat in Latin American Historical records, you may find hundreds of words similar to the word Jat or Jat gotras but are they Jats?????? Now for God sake don’t say they are Jats.

The approach of matching the similar words and arriving to a conclusion is a very dangerous approach.

I searched for the word 'Hagan' my gotra and found the people writing this sur name in Europe. Not one but many in hundreds. The one of the wife of Abraham was Hagar. The name was prevalent in ancient Egypt and Arabia. The word Hagan means 'the Great' in Mongolia. But it doesn’t mean that we have any connection with these people. It is just that the words have developed in many languages naturally.

The fact is the word 'Hagan' has come from the first Saka Khatrap who was ruling complete north India from his capital Mathura. His descendants were later on assimilated in Jadu vanshi folds by a common practice of adoption of the laws of the land by invaders.

The powerful make history and the same is recorded. Lord Krishna forced Brahmans to accept him as Avatara and there he is in the records but not as Jat but Jadu Vanshi. Jats as Jats were never powerful but they were powerful by their clans or gotras.

We must analyse how the societies have developed. Family---kutumb----Village-----tribe-----race---caste (and the scope is increasing)

In pre muslim periods non of the kings were known by their castes as it now exists. They were known by their gotras or clans. Harsh Vardhan has been referred as Varak not as Jat. The Jit after a king in 5 centaury as mentioned is nothing to do with Jats but it is a name which means Victory (Jeet). The kings were known to adopt such names on assuming kingship or defeating any enemy.

Let me also bring it out that Chnadela Rajputs also say that they are the descendants of Harsh Vardhan. They may be right as the Virk Jats are as both may be from the same father. The fact is Rajputs and Jats share common ancestry. History is inherited by the powerful not by the weak.

The facts remains the same the word Jat came into being during the invasion of Mohammad-Bin-Kasim into Sind. The earlier references of similar words are never used in terms of a caste or homogeneous group.

ravichaudhary
January 30th, 2003, 08:31 AM
Ashok>
Thanks for valuable information.

Let me give some more inputs. The Rishis Gotras, like Bharadwaj, Kashyap etc which you have mentioned are not of vadic period but pre Mahabharat period. In fact they are the branches created out of the descendants of Yayati.

Ravi> Ashok there is a lot of mythology mixed inhere. The Mahabharat is composed in the CE i.e post birth of christ period. It is basicaly a very unreliable document. It has gone from 800 to over 100,000 shlokas, and was constantly being revised right down to the 19th century.



Ashok> So they had the blood of a warrior. Please refer Sri-Mad Bhagavat Purana, which gives the genealogy of all the Rishis you have mentioned. In fact Parshuram himself was the descendant of Yayati.


Ravi> With respect,. How reliable is the purana, and for that matter the Pashurama
Myth, that he defeated and wiped out the Ksahtriyas 21 times, and their widows had to beg the Brahmans to impregnate them.

Does it make any sense.

To me this is another late concoction, to write up the story in their" pothi" and with time and the ignorance of people, many people believe it.



Ashok> Today's Brahmans also have two separate groups. One Like Mishras, Pandeys etc are the original Brahmans of vadic period.


Ravi> oops, how do you know they are original. Because they say so ??


Ashok> Other groups are of those like Bhradwaj who came as Purohits to Warriors kings and later on assimilated into Brahman folds. This assimilation in fact happened during Lord Krishna;s time. Ved Vyasji was not from the branch of Vedic period. The feeling of distinction is
still visible between these two groups of Brahmans. In fact they avoid marriages.

Ravi> Many persons got assimilated in the Brahman folds. Not a big deal in itself. It is happening now too.


Ashok: >I have a serious objection to finding the roots of Jats purely repeat purely by matching the words.

Ravi> on this I am in whole hearted agreement with you.



Ashok> If that is the approach then The Jatavs (Schedule castes) and The jats should be from the same family??But are they???

Ravi> by itself, the question is why is such a thing not possible. If they got marginalized for whatever reason, like working with leather, or carpentry, they would fall on the socila scale and be marginalized.

If we in UP Haryana and Punjab had not had such a strong support structure, we would have been marginalized, and be scheduled caste or worse. Look how the Jats were treated in Rajasthan by the Rajputs.

He could sit on a Charpoy in front the Rajput, but had to sit on the floor. His women were not allowed to tie the Nada of the Ghagra.

Be reasonable.
Ashok > You punch a word Jat in Latin American Historical records, you may find hundreds of words similar to the word Jat or Jat gotras but are they Jats??? Now for God sake don’t say they are Jats.

Ravi> if the Jat clan name exists in Europe there is a reason.


Ashok >The approach of matching the similar words and arriving to a conclusion is a very dangerous approach.


Ravi> agreed.

Ashok> I searched for the word 'Hagan' my gotra and found the people writing this sur name in Europe. Not one but many in hundreds. The one of the wife of Abraham was Hagar. The name was prevalent in ancient Egypt and Arabia. The word Hagan means 'the Great' in Mongolia. But it doesn’t mean that we have any connection with these people. It is just that the words have developed in many languages naturally.

Ravi> what is the natural development. I do not expect an immediate answer, as that is a complicated subject.

But if the surname Hagan is derived from Great, and the surname is found in Central Asia and India, why would you not accept a realtionship/

The Saka Satraps did come from Central Asia.




Ashok> The fact is the word 'Hagan' has come from the first Saka Khatrap who was ruling complete north India from his capital Mathura.


His descendants were later on assimilated in Jadu vanshi folds by a common practice of adoption of the laws of the land by invaders.

Ravi> That is a different matter. People accept change religion and so on. But being accpted in some fold does not mean being descended from them.

Ashok> The powerful make history and the same is recorded. Lord Krishna forced Brahmans to accept him as Avatara and there he is in the records but not as Jat but Jadu Vanshi.

Ravi> Actually the Brahmins considered him to be born in a low class shudra Jatt family, as per Al beruni, who could have got such nonsense only from the Brahmins


Ashok> Jats as Jats were never powerful but they were powerful by their clans or gotras.

We must analyse how the societies have developed. Family---kutumb----Village-----tribe-----race---caste (and the scope is increasing)

In pre muslim periods non of the kings were known by their castes as it now exists. They were known by their gotras or clans. Harsh Vardhan has been referred as Varak not as Jat



Ashok> . The Jit after a king in 5 centaury as mentioned is nothing to do with Jats but it is a name which means Victory (Jeet).

Ravi> The actual quote is below"

May the Jit'ha be thy protector! What does this Jit resemble? Which
is the vessel of conveyance across the waters of life, which is
partly white, partly red? Again, what does it resemble, where the
hissing- angered serpents dwell? What may this Jit'ha be compared to,
from whose root the roaring flood descends? Such is the Jit'h, by it
may thou be preserved. (1)""

Rest : see message Raja Sailendra ( new post) or

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/42

And for that matter what is the etymology of jeet, Jit, or how is "Jeet " derived.



you are going too much by what the Brahminical literature says. That literature is not there to give you your due, it is there to glorify some castiest Panda, and to say you were nothing.

The first step to marginalize a people is to denigrate them, and wipe out their history, and their sense of pride and dignity.

This has already happened considerably in our Jat society. Many Jats are ashamed to admit they are Jats, they call themselves proudly , we are descendants of Rajputs, we are Khattris, we are anything but Jats.

Reluctantly , they will admit they are Jats.

We must change this for our kids and their kids.


Ashok> The kings were known to adopt such names on assuming kingship or defeating any enemy.

Ravi> the history of the Jats is not a litany of king lists. Our system was more republican, democratic.


Ashok> Let me also bring it out that Chandela Rajputs also say that they are the descendants of Harsh Vardhan. They may be right as the Virk Jats are as both may be from the same father.

Ravi> That could be. The Chandela ruled in Madhya pradesh, Malwa , mandsor was the home of the Virk clans.

So if they claim descent from the same clan, that is fine.

Many jat familes joined the Rajput groups.


Ashok> The fact is Rajputs and Jats share common ancestry. History is inherited by the powerful not by the weak.

Ravi> So let us recover our history and our sense of pride. Insist we educate our children. Each of us should concentrate in bringing our families out the villages into the new world, the world of Knowledge, industry, enginering, Trading, Business. This is where the new war is being fought.

Or be prepared to be marginalized and wiped out.



Ashok> The facts remains the same the word Jat came into being during the invasion of Mohammad-Bin-Kasim into Sind. The earlier references of similar words are never used in terms of a caste or homogeneous group.


Ravi> Ashok you cannot say that. I have given examples both here and on the Jat History group

that The Kushans knew themselves as Jats. The Saka Ksatraps would have also known themselves as Jats.

With resepct, i hu,bly suggest that you are relying to much on was the Brahmins recorded.


Ravi

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

chashokverma
January 31st, 2003, 02:13 PM
Dear Ravi Ji thnx for your additional input and advise to be careful about the Puranas.

It may not be correct to disregard any peace of information. In lack of clear historical evidences, scholars work on the equation of probability. This equation is based upon all available sources of information may be primary or secondary. Any secondary source of information like Puranas, Kavyas, Books etc will have perceptional reporting. This information’s cannot be taken as correct unless corroborated by some primary source of Information like inscriptions or some secondary source of information. In absence of primary source of information, the opinion has to be formed based on secondary source of information and this is where the disputes come up. In such situation the deductions are made based on the logic and the opinion of the majority simultaneously recording other views.

Puranas; a secondary source of information cannot be totally written off. The Puranas give plethora of information, which if analyzed in careful manner and corroborated with other facts get you to the deductions.

It is heartening to note that the work of Col Todd is being recognized. The man had made a honest attempt to carry out a fair judgment about the social status of Jats based on whatever information was available to him. Though there are some serious mistakes. There are few other works, which give out valuable information about Jats. A Mathura memoirs by Mr Grouse published in 18th centuary is one of them.

It is also good to see that now at least people are talking.

The three most important factors, which have played in deciding the social status or a tribe or race, are the political power, religious sanctions and the economic strength. While writing histories about Jast the dynamics created by these factors can not be ignored and for that the study of sociao-political history of India as prevalent has to be taken into account and the same has to include the study of Brahmins and their social and political order.


The comments on relations between Jat-and Jatavs are encouraging and it speaks of a mature mindset.

The real history about the warrior classes including Jats of India will be incomplete without the study of the role played by the Buddhist religion. Some of the points a food for thought are:-

Is it that the reforms brought in by Lord Krishna triggered the origin of Buddhist religion?

Why in Puranas, in no place the Chndra Vanshi Kings have been mentioned as Kchatriyas (the protectors) whereas meat eating Surya Vanshis has been put in that class? (the reference made to Chandra Vansh here includes today’s Jats).

These Khatriyas were protectings whom. What was the threat? Was it that the Budha a chandra Vanshiya married Ela a Surya Vanshi woman forcefully to thwart the preparations of Brahmins to produce Sorya Vanshis?

Why the Moon is common as symbol of power among many tribes of Indo-scithians, Turks, Afgans and Chndra vanshis and even Islam? (not to be confused with their sun race)

Why the Chnadra Vanshis at some places have been referred as Mlechas, Asurass and Rakhchas?

Why the Parasuram a Chndra vanshi himself was given the status of Avatara for killing his own Chndra Vanshi brothers and treated like Brahmin?

Why only a Chndra Vanshi King Sidharth became Budha and tried to bring a socio-religious order based on Sangha like Khaps in today’s Jats.

Why the Sakas, Kushanas, Jadu vanshis tried to follow the political path of republic (sangha) and not of monarchy ?

Why the Vansha of Chndra Gupta Vikramaditya was kept a secret (gupta)?

Why the Surya Vanshis, created in Dravin Desha were given the higher treatment by the Brahmins than Chndra Vanshis of Aryan race and were called the defenders of Uttara path.?


These and many more are relevant questions to be answered to come to any conclusion.


As the reference made to the Jit king. I will name Senjit from the Kul of Puru, Sahastrajit, Shatjit, Ayutajit from the Jadu Kul and many more as jit kings. But This is not a sur name. It is pronounced as Jit the t of Tarajoo not T of Jat or Jit of Col Todd. These were the common names jit means victor. Or the way one calls Jeetey in Jats. The writings of Mitra, sen, jit, pal, chand, varma after the names was a common practice among Chndra Vanshi Kings.

A very important fact which has been mentioned in most of the Vedic and puranic literature is that only from Chndra Vansh the kings moved out of the country to rule in North and West. Nad many of them were downgraded. Like; the descendants of Raji the son of Pururava, Turu, Dhrahumi and Anu all sons of Yayati moved out of Aryarvart to North and west and became Dharma Brashta. Who were these people? Were they the same people those came back as Sakas, Kushans and Yuetchis?

sweet
April 4th, 2003, 09:59 AM
very informative............good job, urmila ji.......................really good task..........................keep it up.

rkumar
April 6th, 2003, 07:37 PM
More I read, more I am convinced about our great heritage...I am sure you will hear a lot from me on this from now on...

Rajendra

rkumar
April 6th, 2003, 07:38 PM
I am sure the following will clear many doubts about the Jats...More I reasearch on Jats, more I am convinced of our great past...

"Author Stephen Collins notes: "When describing the Sacae Scythian tribes who migrated out of Asia in the second century B.C. [previously captive Israelites—descendants of Isaac], George Rawlinson notes that the greatest tribe, the Massagetae, was also named the ‘great Jits, or Jats’ ["Jats," The Sixth Oriental Monarchy, 1872, Vol. 11, p. 357] . . . The term ‘Jat’ has survived as a caste-name in Northwest India [which bordered Persia and Parthia] into modern times, attesting to the ancient dominance of the Jats in that region" (The "Lost" Tribes of Israel . . . Found, 1992, 1995, p. 343).
This name could conceivably be a contraction of Judahite (Hebrew Yehudi, which perhaps became Jehuti (we’ll see more about phonetic shift in language in a moment). However, it should be pointed out that "Jat" designates the peasant caste of northern India and Pakistan ("Jat," Encyclopaedia Britannica, Micropaedia, 1985, Vol. 6, p. 510). Yet that could be because the Jews came to the area as slaves. Or, perhaps more likely, because later conquerors subjugated the Jats and made themselves the upper caste.
Jat may even have initially meant highborn. In a separate article, the Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "Jati, also spelled jat, in India, a Hindu caste. The term is derived from the Sanskrit jata, ‘born’ or ‘brought into existence,’ and indicates a form of existence determined by birth. In Indian philosophy jati (genus) describes any group of things that have generic characteristics in common. Sociologically, jati has come to be used universally to indicate a caste group [in general] within Hindu society" ("Jati," p. 511). Perhaps the notion of Jews as nobility is where the concept of Jat as applied to birth and caste actually began.
It is possible that these people were related to a group known as the Yueh-chih. Says the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Yueh-chih, also called Indo-Scyths, ancient people who ruled in Bactria (now Afghanistan) and India from c. 128 BC to c. AD 450. The Yueh-chih are first mentioned in Chinese sources at the beginning of the 2nd century BC as nomads living in . . . northwest China . . . They and related tribes are the Asi (or Asiani) and Tocharians (Tochari) of Western sources" ("Yueh-chih," Vol. 12, p. 869). And the Asi may well be the Aser of the Norse sagas (again, see Appendix 10: "The Family of Odin").
In the same article the Britannica says: "The Hephthalites . . . [were] originally a Yueh-chih tribe." They were also known as the "White Huns" and their names are sometimes given as "Nephthalites" (compare "Ephthalites, or White Huns," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, on-line at 89.1911encyclopedia.org/E/EP/EPHTHALITES.htm)—likely, as Collins points out, a derivation of the Israelite tribe of Naphtali (p. 237). If the name Yueh-chih perhaps derives from Judah or Yehudah, then the description of Naphtali as a Yueh-chih tribe could possibly indicate that the Jews were dispersed throughout the other tribes as leaders in their migrations.
The Jutes
Collins sees a connection between the Jats and the Jutes of Europe (p. 343), and one may well exist—particularly when we realize that a Norse equivalent for the Scythian names Geat or Goth was Jat (see the Edda genealogy in Appendix 10: "The Family of Odin"). But who were the Jutes? They were a tribe of people who gave their name to Jutland, the mainland peninsula of Denmark.
Furthermore, though we often think of the Angles and Saxons who settled in Britain and became the English, it is more correct to say that Britain was invaded in the fifth through seventh centuries by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes: "Most of the country was conquered by these Teutons, of whom the principle tribes were the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, who finally fused into one people, under the name of Anglo-Saxons, or Angles or English, while that portion of Britain in which they made their home was called England" (Gene Gurney, Kingdoms of Europe: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Ruling Monarchs from Ancient Times to the Present, 1982, p. 129).
In fact, the Jutes actually arrived first! "The first of these Teutonic kingdoms was founded in Kent. A despairing British chieftain or king, Vortigern . . . to save his people from their northern foes . . . invited the Teutons to come to his aid. Two well-known Jutish Vikings, Hengist and Horsa, accepted the invitation with their followers, and in the year 449 landed on the island of Thanet, the southeastern extremity of the England . . . Eric, a son of Hengist, was, in 457, formally crowned king of Kent, that is, of England’s southeastern coast. He was the first of her Teutonic kings" (p. 129).
Now the critical question: Could the name Jute—and perhaps Jat—be related to Judah? Notice the following from a linguistics textbook: "The German linguist Jakob Grimm (of fairy-tale fame) . . . published a four-volume treatise (1819-1822) that specified the regular sound correspondences among Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and the Germanic languages. It was not only the similarities that intrigued Grimm and other linguists, but the systematic nature of the differences . . . Grimm pointed out that certain phonological changes that did not take place in Sanskrit, Greek, or Latin must have occurred early in the history of the Germanic languages. Because the changes were so strikingly regular, they became known as ‘Grimm’s Law’ . . . [one example of which is] d—>t . . . voiced stops become voiceless" (Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman, An Introduction to Language, Fourth Edition, 1988, p. 315).
Thus, the people who were later known as the Juten or Yuten (as J is pronounced Y in German and Scandinavian languages) would originally have been known as the Juden or Yuden. With the Hebrew plural this would be Judim or Yudim—J’hudim or Y’hudim being the actual Hebrew for Jews. Indeed, Juden is the German word for Jews.
Hengist and Horsa, then, were leaders of Jutes who were likely Jews. As this Jutish population expanded in southern England, it took over more and more land—the Jutes thus becoming nobles. Indeed, their early arrival ensured that they were the longest established noble families of the Anglo-Saxon population. Furthermore, Hengist and Horsa are traced in descent from Woden or Odin, making them royal descendants of Zerah and perhaps even David (see Appendix 9: "The Family of Odin" and 10: "Joseph of Arimathea and the Line of Nathan"). The same is true of the kings of the Angles and Saxons who soon followed.
In the 800s, Danish Vikings took over the western half of England before the Anglo-Saxons repelled them. And the Danes later ruled England from 1013-1042 before it came back under Saxon sovereignty. In both instances, Danish nobility was mixed with the local Anglo-Saxon nobility. But consider that the Danish rulers were descendants from Odin—and the Danes themselves came from Jutland, thus likely ensuring that many of their nobles were of Jutish (and therefore probably Jewish) descent. This would be parallel with Ireland, where the common people were the tribe of Dan but the nobility were the Milesian Scots, who were Jews. In Denmark, the common people were again the tribe of Dan but the nobility were in all likelihood Jutes who were, yet again, Jews."

High time we have a College or Institute of Jat History . I am really serious now that this has to be done as even most educated Jats do not know about their own history.

Rajendra

rkumar
April 20th, 2003, 07:38 PM
Lingayats = Linga+ Y(or J)ats.. the word itself tells everything about this community that they are the followers of Linga (Lord Shiva) and Jats. I am not an histoprian but whatever I have read and can think, the lingustics has an important role in history and one can not ignore the similarity of wards totally. Its not uncommon for people to keep their surnames intact even when they change religion and migrate long distances and give same names to the villages or twons which they establish at new places..If one does not trust the old history, I am sure most will agree with so many Londons, Yorks (new and old)..I agree that all similar words can not have links but at the same time many such words have links..One has to use his / her judgement.

Rajendra

ravichaudhary
April 20th, 2003, 09:42 PM
[quote]Rajendra Kumar Kalkhunde (Apr 20, 2003 10:08 a.m.):
Lingayats = Linga+ Y(or J)ats..

**********''

See

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/70

and # 73

Comments welcome

Ravi