Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 178

Thread: Jaat Ka Dharam Kya Hai ?

  1. #141
    खालसा पंथ की नीव १७वि सदी के अंत में पड़ी थी. जाट खालसा में १८वि सदी के बाद आना शुरु हुए थे और कुछ एक साल बाद औरंगजेब की मौत हो गयी थी. औरंगजेब/मुग़ल मराठों से और पठानों से लड़ कर काफी कमजोर हो चुके थे. खालसा पंथ की नीव रखने में दूसरी जातियों का बहोत बड़ा हाथ हे. अगर मुग़ल दक्कन में और पठानों में न फंसे होते तो शयद सिख empire इतनी जल्दी स्थापित ही न हो पाता. एक पॉवर vaccum बन गया था औरंगजेब के बाद.



    औरंगजेब का साथ तो बहोत से हिन्दू भी दे रहे थे. उसका mission सबको मुस्लमान बनाना नहीं था नहीं तो सबसे पहले वो राजपूतों को मुस्लमान बनता. और आपको पाता न हो तो औरंगजेब के payroll में ३३% हिन्दू थे. . वो इस्लाम को बढावा जरूर देता था.



    तो भाई जो जाट आज हिन्दू हे वो आज भी हिन्दू ही होते अगर खालसा न होता तो भी.

    सिखों ने अंग्रेजों का खूब साथ दिया था १८५७ की क्रांति में.

    और सिख जाट में बहोत से इसलिए भी सिख बने थे ताकि उनका सामाजिक सत्र ऊपर उठ सके.


    This is turning to be another one - sided rant in praise of sikh jaats. But everyone know the contributitions of Khatris and other communities in sikhism.
    Last edited by VirJ; August 23rd, 2011 at 02:52 PM.
    जागरूक ती अज्ञानी नहीं बनाया जा सके, स्वाभिमानी का अपमान नहीं करा जा सके , निडर ती दबाया नहीं जा सके भाई नुए सामाजिक क्रांति एक बार आ जे तो उसती बदला नहीं जा सके ---ज्याणी जाट।

    दोस्त हो या दुश्मन, जाट दोनुआ ने १०० साल ताईं याद राखा करे

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VirJ For This Useful Post:

    Fateh (August 24th, 2011), vijaykajla1 (August 23rd, 2011)

  3. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by VipinJyani View Post
    और सिख जाट में बहोत से इसलिए भी सिख बने थे ताकि उनका सामाजिक सत्र ऊपर उठ सके.
    So...you come to the point that social status of Jats in Hinduism was/is lower? I am not talking about the economic condition..how do Jats stand in the eyes of upper caste-hindus (brahmin/rajput/bania /khatri)..did they ever enjoy the same social status as brahmins given to rajputs?
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to prashantacmet For This Useful Post:

    AhlawatSardar (August 23rd, 2011), vicky84 (August 24th, 2011)

  5. #143
    Not only in hinduism but in wider Asia, who ever had to work had a lower status compared to those who didnt have to work. Thats why fairer skin was considered as a sign of upper class, prosperity because they didnt have to work (in the sun). In India later on it became rigid caste system.

    Some jats of that area say they had a low status same as sudra where as some from southern and eastern part claim they have khastariya status. Jats from Mathura region even rebelled against Aurangjeb.

    Things are bit unclear on the status of jats as per the Hindu verna system. Different area of jats claim different status. There were a few jat kings too. Jats were mainly farmers so logically they should be vaish which is no 3 but above sudra but some were in military too since the mougal era. I think the areas where they were militarily strong or were in influencial position they claimed khastariya status but it was uncommon in north-western region before sikh state. As Jats doesnt fit in this caste system its hard to say but ya I havent heard of Jats being treated as shudra where no one share a sapce with them. Ironically in Jat families I have seen shudras getting a 'special treatment'.

    Anyway thats a subject in itself.


    Addition : I met a person yesterday in a meet who says he is Rajput Jat from Himachal. I didnt get much chance to interact on history but I have heard this before.
    Last edited by VirJ; August 23rd, 2011 at 06:20 PM.
    जागरूक ती अज्ञानी नहीं बनाया जा सके, स्वाभिमानी का अपमान नहीं करा जा सके , निडर ती दबाया नहीं जा सके भाई नुए सामाजिक क्रांति एक बार आ जे तो उसती बदला नहीं जा सके ---ज्याणी जाट।

    दोस्त हो या दुश्मन, जाट दोनुआ ने १०० साल ताईं याद राखा करे

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to VirJ For This Useful Post:

    Fateh (August 24th, 2011)

  7. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by VipinJyani View Post
    Not only in hinduism but in wider Asia, who ever had to work had a lower status compared to those who didnt have to work. Thats why fairer skin was considered as a sign of upper class, prosperity because they didnt have to work (in the sun). In India later on it became rigid caste system.
    Sorry vipin, could not get you exactly!!..as far as complexion is concerned, jats are not second to any caste/race of India. Let us spare the physical structure for a moment (because we are among top in that), jats are quite attractive (do you wanna say jats are darker in comparison of brahmin/rajput/vaishya/khatri?)..It may be acceptable that khatris of punjab are fair than jats of UP/haryana but still that is regional phenomenon..Jats of punjab does not lie behind even a bit in comparison of punjabi khatris..I defy your argument that jats were a working class while others not( if you were saying that)
    Some jats of that area say they had a low status same as sudra where as some from southern and eastern part claim they have khastariya status. Jats from Mathura region even rebelled against Aurangjeb.
    I really don't understand this. i have only heard that some jats of gujarat got shudra status..and there are some people in afghanistan who sell bangles and called Jat/Jatt..but I am not very sure what link we got with them. and it is not taht Jats have no kingdom before aurangzeb..jats historians are shouting on their lungs and others will accept the things soon...jats had ancient kingdoms and I believe that!!!

    Things are bit unclear on the status of jats as per the Hindu verna system. Different area of jats claim different status. There were a few jat kings too. Jats were mainly farmers so logically they should be vaish which is no 3 but above sudra but some were in military too since the mougal era. I think the areas where they were militarily strong or were in influencial position they claimed khastariya status but it was uncommon in north-western region before sikh state. As Jats doesnt fit in this caste system its hard to say but ya I havent heard of Jats being treated as shudra where no one share a sapce with them. Ironically in Jat families I have seen shudras getting a 'special treatment'.
    Bingo!!
    Here we come..social status is not quite clear in varna system..and they don't fit in any varna....because Jats never accepted any branch of Hindusim vis a vis..they always had differences..like widow marriage/non-believer in varna system/ ancestor worship/non-acceptance of insane brahmin theories ...now these differences are narrowing down...and pseudo -liberal hindu jats are completely submerged in that..so i should say..jats are hindus (people living across sindh river)..they are following hinduism and branch is Jatism (like vaishnism,shaivaism)
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to prashantacmet For This Useful Post:

    raka (August 24th, 2011), ravinderjeet (August 24th, 2011), vicky84 (August 24th, 2011)

  9. #145
    The way you critise everyone else and talk about hinduism and when it comes to hinduism you start critising 'shudra' (somewhere in the forum) and others is rediculous. I remember you are that fellow who used to stick pics and chat-pati news and stuff..you got to start thinking clean my brother and stop looking down at people.

    I dont generally give a damn but felt like expressing myself this time
    Quote Originally Posted by upendersingh View Post
    हां कुछ चीजों में पंजाब नं. 1 जरूर है. पंजाब अमली-नशेड़ियों के मामले में नं. 1 है.


    पंजाब के लगभग 1 लाख युवक गैरकानूनी तरीके से विदेश में बसने की कोशिश के कारण बाहर जेलों में नारकीय जीवन जी रहे हैं.
    Over one lakh Punjabi youths are behind bars in foreign countries and face deportation. Link



    भाई बात तो उसकी मानी जानी चाहिए, जिसके साथ सबूत हों. मैंने ऊपर साबित कर दिया कि जो हिंदू जाट हैं वे सरदार और मुसलमान जाटों से बहुत आगे हैं. ऐसे में यदि हमारे मुसलमान और सरदार जाट भाई भी हिंदू जाट बन जाते हैं तो उनके लिए अच्छा होगा. पहले वे हिंदू जाट ही तो थे. हिंदू जाट से अलग होकर वे नष्ट होने के कगार पर पहुंच गए हैं.




    भाई हिंदू जाट को तो कोई भी कुछ नहीं बोलता...उनका तो कोई जवाब ही नहीं है...ब्राह्मण तो बेचारे भारत के दबे-कुचले लोग हैं, वे क्या जाटों को नीचा दिखाएंगे. रही बात जाट सिखों की तो अभी आम समाज में अधिकतर लोगों को ये पता ही नहीं है कि सिख धर्म के 10 के 10 गुरु गैर-जाट थे. जिन्हें पता है, वे सामने वाले को किलसाने से नहीं चूकते. अब जो ऐसा कहेगा हम उसे मारने दौड़ेंगे तो ये कोई समस्या का हल थोड़े ही है. किस-किस का मुंह बंद करोगे? वो तो आप पगड़ी नहीं बांधते नहीं तो भाई सरदार होना तो किसी सजा से कम नहीं है (कम से कम दिल्ली में तो). यहां तो कोई भी पगड़ी बांधने वाला सरदार यदि ज्यादा उछलता है तो सामने वाले से उसे ये सुनने को मिलता है कि लगता है फिर 84 वाला कांड करना पड़ेगा.


    भाई हिंदू होने का मतलब यह हरगिज नहीं कि हमें तो धार्मिक कर्मकांड करने ही पड़ेंगे. ये तो बस इतनी सी बात है कि मेरी हिंदू धर्म में आस्था है और मैं हिंदू धर्म का सम्मान/समर्थन करता हूं. वैसे मैं शिवजी और श्रीराम से ज्यादा प्रभावित हूं, लेकिन हनुमान और अन्य हिंदू देवी-देवता भी मुझे बहुत पसंद हैं. मुझे तो गुरु नानक या मुहम्मद साहब से भी कोई वैर नहीं है. बाकी सभी जाट इकट्ठे हो जाएं तो इससे तो बढ़िया कुछ होगा ही नहीं.
    My way or my way ?

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gaganjat For This Useful Post:

    spdeshwal (August 24th, 2011), ssgoyat (August 24th, 2011)

  11. #146
    Mods..Please delete this post. Thanks.
    Last edited by vicky84; August 24th, 2011 at 08:35 AM.

  12. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Sorry vipin, could not get you exactly!!..
    There I was talking in general. Working class never enjoyed high status compared to teachers, aristocrats, kings or in other words for those who they used to work/ serve

    Regarding skin color : A worker would usually had tanned skin due to long exposure to sun and extreme conditions and that’s why in Asia we had this preference for lighter skin as they were considered from rich or influential families. Even these days you can see those who work in fields have usually darker skin than to those who live in cities.

    You may note that some parents don’t allow their kids to play in son more so with girls: “Doop me na khelo kali ho jayegi” so color was attached to status.

    Now you would ask that then why Jats have similar complexion as bhramins? How does jats fit here that I don’t know however based on their occupation its hard for them to claim a high status in society. Now a few jats who were in military or martial class kept claiming Khastariya, I would say but generally they were similar to working class.

    Later on such difference in India became a rigid caste system based on hereditary rather than profession. So typically Jats are considered as the one who belong to agriculture (who works in their own farms) hence as a caste/ethnic group I would be surprised if they have same status as others such as Brahmins or aristocrat.

    Now coming to you point as to Jats never accepted Bhramin system or cast system: Anyone who was outside such system was considered ‘UNTOUCHABLE’ by bhramins (below the shudras) e.g were some tribals and foreigners. Chandals may fall in the same category but due to diff reason. And one thing for sure that Jats were not UNTOUCHABLES on contrary they used to consider others UNTOUCHABLES

    Interesting point here is such system was not limited to Hindus it could be found in others(in south east asia) such as Muslims and that was probably due to cultural influence rather than religion.

    Hope its clear now.


    >>>>>Personally, I don’t care where we belongs and honestly I have high regard for the working class compared to one who lived on alms. I am proud of the fact that we earned bread not begged for it or snatched it. Even today I found myself in the working class and happy here.
    Last edited by VirJ; August 24th, 2011 at 06:42 AM.
    जागरूक ती अज्ञानी नहीं बनाया जा सके, स्वाभिमानी का अपमान नहीं करा जा सके , निडर ती दबाया नहीं जा सके भाई नुए सामाजिक क्रांति एक बार आ जे तो उसती बदला नहीं जा सके ---ज्याणी जाट।

    दोस्त हो या दुश्मन, जाट दोनुआ ने १०० साल ताईं याद राखा करे

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VirJ For This Useful Post:

    Fateh (August 24th, 2011), navdeepkhatkar (August 31st, 2011), prashantacmet (August 24th, 2011), ravinderjeet (August 24th, 2011)

  14. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by VipinJyani View Post
    Now you would ask that then why Jats have similar complexion as bhramins? How does jats fit here that I don’t know however based on their occupation its hard for them to claim a high status in society. Now a few jats who were in military or martial class kept claiming Khastariya, I would say but generally they were similar to working class.
    I am in accord in most of your statements but let me permit to counter some statements
    - OK, let us keep the complexion apart. It is acceptable because we are as as good as others high status hindus.
    - what is meant to be a khastriya.?..I term used for the people in varna system (caste system was not rigid) who would fight for their king and kingdom....so only kings were not kshatriyas , soldiers were also got the same status..and it is not they soldiers were always busy in fighting..it was same as is now...fight when is required otherwise do farming.....Jats are born fighters, quite aggressive and sturdy physical traits..aggression is in their blood..so they were simply farming..i don't accept this...Fight is in our blood whether hindu varna system accept us kshatriyas or not.
    - When caste system was at the verge of being rigid , it is widely acceptable theory that Jats and other martial races who accepted brahmin supremacy they were awarded with term Rajput and others were deprived of that. Let me say it again..as per hindu vaarna system, we may not be kshatriyas but we are martial caste , not second to any other caste of India in fighting spirit.....

    Later on such difference in India became a rigid caste system based on hereditary rather than profession. So typically Jats are considered as the one who belong to agriculture (who works in their own farms) hence as a caste/ethnic group I would be surprised if they have same status as others such as Brahmins or aristocrat.
    It may be acceptable, as at that india came into clutch of rajputs(merged from Jats and other ethic fighters) and later on muslims, Jats could not uprise before mathura revolt..In that interim, may be they were ruling in some areas but as democratic set up...it is known that before that mount abu., budh dharma had great influence in entire north india..and today rajputs are the jats/gujjars who were budhist/jains and were taken back in hindusim (new version , quiete different from vedas)...so brahmins gave the status to rajputs but not Jats because they did not accept their supremacy...but later on when hindu dharma flourished and Jats became Hindus again....they were given lower status but jats never gave a damn to this status thing....they always believed in karma..and most of them still are not so religion fanatic...and no one can snatch away our aggression and fighting spirit
    Last edited by prashantacmet; August 24th, 2011 at 01:11 PM.
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to prashantacmet For This Useful Post:

    Fateh (September 8th, 2011), ravinderjeet (August 24th, 2011)

  16. #149
    You raised good points,I must say.

    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    - what is meant to be a khastriya.?..I term used for the people in varna system (caste system was not rigid) who would fight for their king and kingdom....so only kings were not kshatriyas , soldiers were also got the same status..and it is not they soldiers were always busy in fighting

    I dont think so (Refering to your question above). I guess only people upto at least the level of a bishop or knights or some sort of office bearers were considered in this category. Pawns were in different category I assume.

    Normally its associated with kings. Again there were jats who were kings too however we are different as compared to other caste based on profession like Kumhar(porter), luhar(blacksmith), bhramin(priest), Rajput( king's son), mali, khati etc. I meant jat in general were independent people mostly farmers hence not kshatriyas as per the profession. However some were kshatriyas too but not many esp in the past few centuries.
    जागरूक ती अज्ञानी नहीं बनाया जा सके, स्वाभिमानी का अपमान नहीं करा जा सके , निडर ती दबाया नहीं जा सके भाई नुए सामाजिक क्रांति एक बार आ जे तो उसती बदला नहीं जा सके ---ज्याणी जाट।

    दोस्त हो या दुश्मन, जाट दोनुआ ने १०० साल ताईं याद राखा करे

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to VirJ For This Useful Post:

    prashantacmet (August 24th, 2011)

  18. #150
    विपिन भाई अगर रंग रूप त वर्ण स तो फेर आपने देखा होगा की 70 % राजपूतो का रंग सांवला या काला होता हैं जबकि जाटों में इसका उल्टा हैं |
    ऊँची जाति की औरते खेतो में या घर से बाहर काम करने नहीं जाती थी | राजपूतो में तो औरते कुए से पानी लाने तक नहीं जाती हैं घर के मर्द पानी भरते हैं | जबकि जाटों में औरते मर्द से ज्यादा काम करती हैं |
    देश में ब्राह्मण , राजपूत किसी क्षेत्र का हो उनका वर्ण एक ही मिलेगा | जबकि जाट का वर्ण आप क्षेत्र के हिसाब या काम से हिसाब से बाँट रहे हैं |
    और जाट के साथ ये छुआ छूत वाली हरक़त तो मैं आज भी दिखा दूंगा आपके गाँव बालसमंद में |
    अब यह मत कहना की यह सब गए ज़माने की बाते हैं आजकल नहीं होता |
    जाट धाणक चमारा ने सलाम करण लागे इसका मतलब हरिजन क्षत्रिय हो गए के , या सब बख्त की मार स | न्यू ऐ जाट आपकी जाण में राजी होरे स अक भाहमन हामने मानन लागे |
    " जाट हारा नहीं कभी रण में तीर तोप तलवारों से ,
    जाट तो हारा हैं , गद्दारों से दरबारों से
    |"

    " इस कौम का ईलाही दुखड़ा किसे सुनाऊ ?
    डर हैं के इसके गम में घुल घुल के न मर जाऊँ || "
    ...........................चौ.छोटूराम ओहल्याण

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to raka For This Useful Post:

    rajneeshantil (December 22nd, 2011), ssgoyat (December 22nd, 2011)

  20. #151
    राका भाई जी में ये नहीं कह रहा था के रंग रूप से वरण हे में तो बस ये कह रहा था के रंग देख कर पुराने ज़माने में लोग उसके वरण का अन्ताज़ा लगा लेते थे जैसे आजकल कपडे देख कर लगा लेते हे. एक suit बूट वाला, साफ़ सुथरे बड़ी गाड़ी वाले आदमी को देख कर आमतोर पर लोग अन्ताज़ा लगा लेते हे के कोई बड़ा अफसर या शाही आदमी होगा. इसी तरेह पहले यदि कोई TANNED होता तो लोग सोचते इसको रोटी के लिए बहोत महनेत करनी पड़ती हे और ये Working Class से हे. पहले लोगों का एक क्षेत्र से दुसरे क्षेत्र में जाना कम होता था ये बात एशिया की सभी देशों के लागु होती थी. ये बात बहोत पुराणी हे.

    बाद में धीरे धीरे आपका करम नहीं आपकी पदायिश ये निर्धारित करने लग गयी के आप किस जाती में आते हे. जैसे एक कुम्हार का बेटा कुम्हार ही रहेगा.

    जाट को में क्षेत्र के हिसाब से नहीं बाँट रहा बल्कि ऐसा जाट खुद बांटते हे अपने आप को. जैसा की मेने पिछली पोस्ट में भी कहा हे. कहीं का जाट अपने को क्षत्रिय कहता हे कहीं का शुद्र. ऐसा कुछ अंग्रेजों ने अपनी किताबों में भी लिखा हे

    राका जी बाकी तो मुझे पता नहीं पर मेरा एक दोस्त होता था गाम में धरमबीर शर्मा. वो शुरू से हमारे ही घर खाना खाता था और में और मेरे दोस्त उसके. मुझे ऐसा कभी महसूस नहीं हुआ उसके यहाँ. हाँ मेने भामानों को अलग खाना खाते देखा हे पर वो तो बनियों के घर भी ऐसे ही था. में हुक्का नहीं पीता इसलिए हुक्के का नियम मुझे पता नहीं प़र होटल में जब ये बनिए या पंडित पेग मरते हें तो अलग ग्लास या थाली नहीं मांगते.

    हम तो जयादातर भामानों का मजाक ही उड़ाते हे. मेने तो जट्टां ती फेरों पे या फिर कोई और करम कांड में भामन टी धम्कांदे ही देखा हे जीद वो जयादा छेछर करा करे हे
    Last edited by VirJ; August 25th, 2011 at 01:24 PM. Reason: spell
    जागरूक ती अज्ञानी नहीं बनाया जा सके, स्वाभिमानी का अपमान नहीं करा जा सके , निडर ती दबाया नहीं जा सके भाई नुए सामाजिक क्रांति एक बार आ जे तो उसती बदला नहीं जा सके ---ज्याणी जाट।

    दोस्त हो या दुश्मन, जाट दोनुआ ने १०० साल ताईं याद राखा करे

  21. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by VipinJyani View Post
    You raised good points,I must say.




    I dont think so (Refering to your question above). I guess only people upto at least the level of a bishop or knights or some sort of office bearers were considered in this category. Pawns were in different category I assume.

    Normally its associated with kings. Again there were jats who were kings too however we are different as compared to other caste based on profession like Kumhar(porter), luhar(blacksmith), bhramin(priest), Rajput( king's son), mali, khati etc. I meant jat in general were independent people mostly farmers hence not kshatriyas as per the profession. However some were kshatriyas too but not many esp in the past few centuries.
    Brother, when varnas were named these were based on profession, it is clear that agriculture was not considered a profession and it is understood that powerful/fighters possessed land, they were named shateriyas, hence jats are 100% shatriayas, even our traits speaks loud in the support Also a soldier is soldier whether officer or jawan or king. There was no Rajput that time and may not be king but Jamidars/Mukhiayas who were responsible of safty/security and most were farmers.As per my view all farmers were shateriyas they may have become any caste lateron like jats ahirs, gujjars malies etc, and rajputs came out of farming communities only
    Last edited by Fateh; September 8th, 2011 at 12:57 PM.

  22. #153
    Jaat Ka Dharam Kya Hai ?

    Jaat ka dharam hai: Karam!

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to vicky84 For This Useful Post:

    BSBeniwal (December 4th, 2011), Fateh (December 22nd, 2011), narvir (July 2nd, 2012)

  24. #154
    A news from दैनिक जागरण (अखब़ार)- कुरुक्षेत्र जागरण सिटी. जागरण संवाद केंद्र, कुरुक्षेत्र. शनिवार- 1 अक्टूबर, 2011 with the title 'वैदिक साहित्य को स्वार्थी व्याख्याताओं ने ने किया गन्दा' says:

    " राष्ट्रीय वेद विद्या प्रतिष्ठान के राष्ट्रीय सचिव प्रोफेस्सर रूपकिशोर ने कहा कि वैदिक साहित्य की परम्परा बेहद सम्पन्न है, लेकिन अनेक स्वार्थी व्याख्याताओं ने इस ज्ञान गंगा को मैला कर दिया है. यही स्वार्थी व्याख्याएं वैदिक साहित्य की बदनामी का कारण रही हैं....... उन्होंने कहा कि कोई भी साहित्य यदि समाज कि चुनौतियों का सामना नहीं करेगा और व्यवहार से हटकर एक तिलिस्मी दुनिया कि वकालत करेगा, वह आज नहीं तो कल अप्रासंगिक जरुर हो जायेगा. संघोष्ठी में विशिष्ट अतिथि डा. वेदपाल आचार्य ने कहा कि ऋषि दयानन्द की जो तर्क परंपरा है, उसे जाने समझे बिना वैदिक साहित्य की तार्किकता और प्रासंगिकता सिद्ध नहीं की जा सकती. उन्होनें ज़ोर देकर कहा कि हमें ज्ञान का बंद बक्सा बनने कि ज़रूरत नहीं है. हमे तर्कशील होकर ही वैदिक आशय को समझना चाहिए....... " <Source: दैनिक जागरण (अखब़ार)- कुरुक्षेत्र जागरण सिटी. जागरण संवाद केंद्र, कुरुक्षेत्र. शनिवार- 1 अक्टूबर, 2011>

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    narvir (July 2nd, 2012), ravinderjeet (November 28th, 2011), urmiladuhan (November 30th, 2011)

  26. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by VipinJyani View Post
    You raised good points,I must say.




    I dont think so (Refering to your question above). I guess only people upto at least the level of a bishop or knights or some sort of office bearers were considered in this category. Pawns were in different category I assume.

    Normally its associated with kings. Again there were jats who were kings too however we are different as compared to other caste based on profession like Kumhar(porter), luhar(blacksmith), bhramin(priest), Rajput( king's son), mali, khati etc. I meant jat in general were independent people mostly farmers hence not kshatriyas as per the profession. However some were kshatriyas too but not many esp in the past few centuries.
    I think only a person whose credentials are doubtful would need to make such announcements (that I am so and so or so and so's offspring). Otherwise things are pretty obvious and no such announcement is needed for convincing the public.
    Attention seekers and attention getters are two different class of people.

  27. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by atishmohan View Post
    Jaat Ka Dharam Kya Hai ?


    Jaat ka dharam hai: Karam!
    Good answer bhai.................................Sabka hi dharam hai .........................insaniyat or karam

  28. #157
    'J A T' itself seems to stand for the religion of the community i.e. Justice, Action and Truth. in other words a Jat always acts as he deems to be Just and true action. For delivering justice to others or seeking just behaviour in lieu thereof Jat always adopts the path of truth. So Justice Action and Truth may be considered essence of his religious belief.

  29. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by VipinJyani View Post
    खालसा पंथ की नीव १७वि सदी के अंत में पड़ी थी. जाट खालसा में १८वि सदी के बाद आना शुरु हुए थे और कुछ एक साल बाद औरंगजेब की मौत हो गयी थी. औरंगजेब/मुग़ल मराठों से और पठानों से लड़ कर काफी कमजोर हो चुके थे. खालसा पंथ की नीव रखने में दूसरी जातियों का बहोत बड़ा हाथ हे. अगर मुग़ल दक्कन में और पठानों में न फंसे होते तो शयद सिख empire इतनी जल्दी स्थापित ही न हो पाता. एक पॉवर vaccum बन गया था औरंगजेब के बाद.



    औरंगजेब का साथ तो बहोत से हिन्दू भी दे रहे थे. उसका mission सबको मुस्लमान बनाना नहीं था नहीं तो सबसे पहले वो राजपूतों को मुस्लमान बनता. और आपको पाता न हो तो औरंगजेब के payroll में ३३% हिन्दू थे. . वो इस्लाम को बढावा जरूर देता था.



    तो भाई जो जाट आज हिन्दू हे वो आज भी हिन्दू ही होते अगर खालसा न होता तो भी.

    सिखों ने अंग्रेजों का खूब साथ दिया था १८५७ की क्रांति में.

    और सिख जाट में बहोत से इसलिए भी सिख बने थे ताकि उनका सामाजिक सत्र ऊपर उठ सके.


    This is turning to be another one - sided rant in praise of sikh jaats. But everyone know the contributitions of Khatris and other communities in sikhism.
    Dear Friend,

    We must be cautious in interpreting historical events and avoid sweeping statements on various issues jumbling them at one place. Being a student of history, I am constrained to point out that the religious policy and stances of Aurangzeb are not so easy to be judged as you have done in paras 1 and 2.

    The same applies to your contention about the foundation of Khalsa and participation of the Sikhs in 1857. Both these points are being debated at very high academic level. In fact, the role of "Sikh Rulers" of the day and "Sikhs" as a religious group should not be bracketed as the same thing.

    Another observation I would like to share with you is that there is no place for 'ifs' and 'buts' in history. It is a fact that Khalsa has been founded and has been growing with its multi dimensional influence on Indians. The other conclusion of yours about the motive of Hindu Jats joining Khalsa also does not stand scrutiny of historical research.

    Again contribution of the Jats, Khatris and others in Sikhism does not warrant comments here because it too belongs to separate stream of study.

    Dear Friend, i once again say with all humility that we must not stoop so low to hit somebody below the belt to show that our protagonist is unparalleled in achievements. Rather, a student of history should produce the factual position of the events and persons involved and desist from painting larger than life pictures. Furthermore, would it not be good if under the limits of one thread one issue may be taken up for threadbare discussion to arrive at some tentative conclusion. This to my mind would result in fruitful discussion.

    Nonetheless, I respect your right to expression of your views in the way as you deem fit.

    Regards.

    Dr. Raj Pal Singh

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    Fateh (December 22nd, 2011), narvir (July 2nd, 2012), singhvp (December 22nd, 2011), urmiladuhan (December 21st, 2011), vicky84 (December 21st, 2011)

  31. #159
    Dr. Raj,

    That post was a reply to #135 and other post and should be seen in that reference. I dont think 'I was hitting someone below the belt' as you mentioned. You questioned what I said that's ok but you didnt input what was the fact. You said there is no if not but in history however you youself are putting a few ifs and buts. You mentioned these things are discussed at high level but didnt mention the outcome. You merely stated its not easy to be judged.

    Anyway there may be no if and but in history but there is always "your history" and "my history". Like in Greek hisotry Alexander defeated Porus but in Indian history he failed to, like in Indian history Britishers looted india but in British history they civilized us.

    I am not a student of history but will welcome the chance to learn from a learned.
    Last edited by VirJ; December 22nd, 2011 at 03:23 AM. Reason: Spell
    जागरूक ती अज्ञानी नहीं बनाया जा सके, स्वाभिमानी का अपमान नहीं करा जा सके , निडर ती दबाया नहीं जा सके भाई नुए सामाजिक क्रांति एक बार आ जे तो उसती बदला नहीं जा सके ---ज्याणी जाट।

    दोस्त हो या दुश्मन, जाट दोनुआ ने १०० साल ताईं याद राखा करे

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VirJ For This Useful Post:

    neetu21 (December 21st, 2011), ssgoyat (December 22nd, 2011)

  33. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by VipinJyani View Post
    Dr. Raj,

    That post was a reply to #135 and other post and should be seen in that reference. I dont think 'I was hitting someone below the belt' as you mentioned. You questioned what I said that's ok but you didnt input what was the fact. You said there is no if not but in history however you youself are putting a few ifs and buts. You mentioned these things are discussed at high level but didnt mention the outcome. You merely stated its not easy to be judged.

    Anyway there may be no if and but in history but there is always "your history" and "my history". Like in Greek hisotry Alexander defeated Porus but in Indian history he failed to, like in Indian history Britishers looted india but in British history they civilized us.

    I am not a student of history but will welcome the chance to learn from a learned.
    Dear Vipin ji,

    Sorry for having inadvertently used strong phrase like 'hitting below belt.'
    But let me add here that I have heard for the first time terms "your history" and "my history". Perhaps you are alluding to two points of view of two 'nationalist historians.' But to my mind in that case too, both these histories are not accepted as true representation of the objective presentation of the event under discussion. If the sources of information collected by both the protagonist nationalist historians of both sides are judged impartially and correlated with extant available newer information on the issue, then and only then, it would be history.

    Secondly, I am of the view that there is no monopoly of the students of history only to write on history. There are so many examples where men belonging to literature and other subjects have rose to eminence in the field of history. I appreciate your zeal and quest for knowledge. Please keep it up.

    Regards

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    Fateh (December 22nd, 2011), vicky84 (December 22nd, 2011)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •