Jat - Identity and Social Status

[drssrana2003]

It would be kind of you if you could share the exact reference to the Chinese source where he has made this entry about caste of Harsha to enable us to understand the contextual meaning of the passage under reference.

Also kindly further elaborate your statement: This only makes us think about a common antecedent i.e. ancestry."

1. We do have common clan names among the Jats and Rajputs. Today they are taken as separate and different communities. One example is Tomar. That means that we have more than one branch of Tomars
. There were times when the terms Rajput or Jat as they are understood today were not in currency in the sense in which the arte today. I think we are obliged to ask questions and find answers. To my mind one plausible explanation is that there were times hen there was only one type of Tomars-the ancestors.

[narenderkharb]

1. We do have common clan names among the Jats and Rajputs. Today they are taken as separate and different communities. One example is Tomar. That means that we have more than one branch of Tomars
. There were times when the terms Rajput or Jat as they are understood today were not in currency in the sense in which the arte today. I think we are obliged to ask questions and find answers. To my mind one plausible explanation is that there were times hen there was only one type of Tomars-the ancestors.

That is a wrong way of searching history or arriving at conclusions.....

Let us take example of Godara bishnois and Godara Jats .....After some centuries by your logic one may derive result that there were times when there was Godara ancesstors...and later there were Godara Jats and Godara Bishnois.

Here you assume a wrong proposition that both identities evolved simulatneously which is faulty.Fact is Godara Bishnois were Godara Jats earlier.


So important thing is which is older identity and which is newly derived.

[drssrana2003]

That is a wrong way of searching history or arriving at conclusions.....

Let us take example of Godara bishnois and Godara Jats .....After some centuries by your logic one may derive result that there were times when there was Godara ancesstors...and later there were Godara Jats and Godara Bishnois.

Here you assume a wrong proposition that both identities evolved simulatneously which is faulty.Fact is Godara Bishnois were Godara Jats earlier.


So important thing is which is older identity and which is newly derived.

I would be interested in knowing how we have common Gotra names among the Jats and Rajputs of modern times. The number is so large that we may not dismiss it lightly.
Your take on this.

[narenderkharb]

I would be interested in knowing how we have common Gotra names among the Jats and Rajputs of modern times. The number is so large that we may not dismiss it lightly.
Your take on this.

Answer to your question lies in detail understanding of history of various caste/ races. Meaning of their names and process of their evolution.

A proper framing of your question could be Why we have a a large number of clans common with Rajput and Gujjars ?


Reason is Jat is a mother race out of which originated other identities ,first Gurjars and then Rajputs . Jat is a racial identity Gurjar is a geographic term and Rajput being a title was also joined by other non Jat communities. So common clans of these identities show a Jat ancesstery in the past.

[prashantacmet]

Answer to your question lies in detail understanding of history of various caste/ races. Meaning of their names and process of their evolution.

A proper framing of your question could be Why we have a a large number of clans common with Rajput and Gujjars ?


Reason is Jat is a mother race out of which originated other identities ,first Gurjars and then Rajputs . Jat is a racial identity Gurjar is a geographic term and Rajput being a title was also joined by other non Jat communities. So common clans of these identities show a Jat ancesstery in the past.

Narender ji,It seems like Adam of monotheist religions. As Adam was ancestor of entire mankind. Jats are Adams of all central asia, many europeans and bharata tribes. what about pashtun, awans, ghakar, yadav, khatri, arora, saini, kamboja and other north west Indian tribes?...these were also having jat ancestors?...
jaat sabka baap ...feeling prudent

[narenderkharb]

Narender ji,It seems like Adam of monotheist religions. As Adam was ancestor of entire mankind. Jats are Adams of all central asia, many europeans and bharata tribes. what about pashtun, awans, ghakar, yadav, khatri, arora, saini, kamboja and other north west Indian tribes?...these were also having jat ancestors?...
jaat sabka baap ...feeling prudent

Not all Arora Khatris are Indo Greeks .Not sure of Sainis .

Ghakkars themselves were treated as Jats earlier both by oral traditions and records of Britishers. Similarly Balochs have Jat ancesstry in the past.

Pasthuns is a geographic Identity that have a lot of Jat clas ,Dudi,Gills ,kakkar Parni etc who were treated Jats in earlier times.

Kambojas are inhabitants of Kamboja country like Punjabi and Haryanvi .Jats had connection with Yadavs in remote past ,which you can read in my book ,only if I can get it published one day.

[DrRajpalSingh]

Narender ji,It seems like Adam of monotheist religions. As Adam was ancestor of entire mankind. Jats are Adams of all central asia, many europeans and bharata tribes. what about pashtun, awans, ghakar, yadav, khatri, arora, saini, kamboja and other north west Indian tribes?...these were also having jat ancestors?...
jaat sabka baap ...feeling prudent

If identity formation history of various words denoting present day castes in Indian society is an indication precedence of the Jat word with its synonymous words in various old dialects and languages seems to justify Shri Kharb's point of view. The words like Gurjar, Rajput etc. appeared late than the Jats denoting group of people or community or say caste in modern parlance.

So do not laugh away the formulation of Shri Kharb; rather give contrary historical evidence to contradict him, please

[narenderkharb]

If identity formation history of various words denoting present day castes in Indian society is an indication precedence of the Jat word with its synonymous words in various old dialects and languages seems to justify Shri Kharb's point of view. The words like Gurjar, Rajput etc. appeared late than the Jats denoting group of people or community or say caste in modern parlance.

So do not laugh away the formulation of Shri Kharb; rather give contrary historical evidence to contradict him, please

He believes a lot in my theory but worries what if the theory is not proved and Joy is short lived.

On a serious not my understanding is not some formulation it is rather based on historical narrations present in various books.

[prashantacmet]

If identity formation history of various words denoting present day castes in Indian society is an indication precedence of the Jat word with its synonymous words in various old dialects and languages seems to justify Shri Kharb's point of view. The words like Gurjar, Rajput etc. appeared late than the Jats denoting group of people or community or say caste in modern parlance.

So do not laugh away the formulation of Shri Kharb; rather give contrary historical evidence to contradict him, please

Rajpal ji, you does not seem a serious history student ..history is all about contradiction ..no contradiction , no reconstruction........You hardly contradict other views..how the history will be reconstructed then?

[NikhilNehra]

Rajpal ji, you does not seem a serious history student ..history is all about contradiction ..no contradiction , no reconstruction........You hardly contradict other views..how the history will be reconstructed then?

Bhai.....It's not necessary to be contradict on each and every issue all the time (like you ). If we can see something authentic, well genuine and previously accepted then why we should contradict to it?........what is wrong in this theory that Jats are ancient than Rajputs and Gujjar........one more thing, recently you advised all of the historians/re-searchers here to be a good listener then what about you????????...Three fingers are always pointing towards you.....
Bhai, I have noticed one more thing from your comments that when anyone objects to the theory of Mr Rana you "khamai kha mai" become aggressive...So please open your mind while in conversation with any of your Jat-fellow. After all we all here have one common goal with us and that is to unveil the hidden Jat history but with consensus (as quick as possible). Yes, contradiction is the nice thing in history but I think you are using overdose of it.....

[narenderkharb]

Bhai.....It's not necessary to be contradict on each and every issue all the time (like you ). If we can see something authentic, well genuine and previously accepted then why we should contradict to it?........what is wrong in this theory that Jats are ancient than Rajputs and Gujjar........one more thing, recently you advised all of the historians/re-searchers here to be a good listener then what about you????????...Three fingers are always pointing towards you.....
Bhai, I have noticed one more thing from your comments that when anyone objects to the theory of Mr Rana you "khamai kha mai" become aggressive...So please open your mind while in conversation with any of your Jat-fellow. After all we all here have one common goal with us and that is to unveil the hidden Jat history but with consensus (as quick as possible). Yes, contradiction is the nice thing in history but I think you are using overdose of it.....

Relax Nikhil Prashant's comment on Rajpal ji 's post are just in a lighter vein.He is very talented scholar and knows very well that Rajpal ji being an eminent writer and Head of History Department is most capable among us. .Each and every objection put forward by him is very genuine and authentic which must be answered so that pseudo history doesn't creep in our historical records.

I agree with you that we must fast track this consensus but to achieve that we must not fall prey to wrong interpretations.

Best way is to cross examine each and every evidence and keep up our efforts for reconstruction.

[prashantacmet]

Bhai.....It's not necessary to be contradict on each and every issue all the time (like you ). If we can see something authentic, well genuine and previously accepted then why we should contradict to it?........what is wrong in this theory that Jats are ancient than Rajputs and Gujjar........one more thing, recently you advised all of the historians/re-searchers here to be a good listener then what about you????????...Three fingers are always pointing towards you.....
Bhai, I have noticed one more thing from your comments that when anyone objects to the theory of Mr Rana you "khamai kha mai" become aggressive...So please open your mind while in conversation with any of your Jat-fellow. After all we all here have one common goal with us and that is to unveil the hidden Jat history but with consensus (as quick as possible). Yes, contradiction is the nice thing in history but I think you are using overdose of it.....

interesting observation......

Anyway, dare to take all your theories out on some other public forum(non-jats) and your bubble will be burst in a fraction of second if you don't have answer for your theories and it is not put forth with ample evidence,

so it's just trash and questioning help to reconstruct history...I don't use word right or wrong for a theory, only asks questions which come to my mind with my little knowledge of history...

1-2 kittab padhkar , ek raat main poori history change nahi karyai jaati.........and I am open, quite open for new theories and criticism....one day I may agree with you and other day not....it's not like that I always accept Dr SS rana words and reject others..so clear the confusion out of your mind..rana ji is a sanskrit scholar, kharb ji a midful researcher of jat history, me a nursery student of history and rajpal ji only ceritified historian..and i know it very well

so nauzawaan ,save your "josh" for something better......don't drain it "kham-kha main"

[drssrana2003]

If identity formation history of various words denoting present day castes in Indian society is an indication precedence of the Jat word with its synonymous words in various old dialects and languages seems to justify Shri Kharb's point of view. The words like Gurjar, Rajput etc. appeared late than the Jats denoting group of people or community or say caste in modern parlance.

So do not laugh away the formulation of Shri Kharb; rather give contrary historical evidence to contradict him, please

Yes, We should not laugh away any body's views. But please bring what are the historical facts and evidence cited. Kindly put forth. I am a

novice, still at the stage of learning how to frame a question.If things are so very settled what are we bebating about.

[DrRajpalSingh]

Rajpal ji, you does not seem a serious history student ..history is all about contradiction ..no contradiction , no reconstruction........You hardly contradict other views..how the history will be reconstructed then?

i m just a student of history neither serious nor non-serious.See, I have already contradicted your statement, dear friend ! But I do not believe in contradicting anyone for the sake of contradiction only !

[DrRajpalSingh]

Attention of the participants is drawn to the thread http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...-Reintrepreted

where many of the points being raised have been taken up earlier. So have a study of the relevant posts before proceeding further in the matter.

The issue of antiquity of the Jat identity is already much discussed topic on the site. Some useful posts could be found here :

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...he-Jat-History

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...436#post374436

[DrRajpalSingh]

Yes, We should not laugh away any body's views. But please bring what are the historical facts and evidence cited. Kindly put forth. I am a

novice, still at the stage of learning how to frame a question.If things are so very settled what are we bebating about.

No disrespect to you in any way Rana Sahib. The comment in my post under reference does not relate to you Sir in any way to react in this manner !

However, it is good of you to keep question-answer sessions alive by using your accumulated scholarship of the long years of teaching.

[narenderkharb]

We must thank Rana Saheb for intiating a process of Critical evaluation of supposed theory of origin and antiquity of Jats ...

Like Jat sanghate theory...of Panini

Gyat Sangha theory of Thakur Desraj

Mythical theory of origin of Jats from Shiva locks ....

All these theories were based on a wrong understanding of sanskrit references which was well pointed out by Rana Saheb an eminent Sanskrit Scholar.

Time has come when we should leave such theories and move on to find out real origin of Jats by critically evaluating every evidence.

Dr Rana himself proposed theory of Jat label given by Arabs I feel we must also critically evaluate it and expect Dr Rana to justify his theory because unless and until we are clear among ourselves how can we convince others.I hope my criticism of theory will be taken in positive spirit.

I absolutely agree with Nikhil's observation that we must fasten this process of consensus among various Jat Historians so that we can put a correct picture to outsiders as soon as possible.

[DrRajpalSingh]

Zeal of the participants to arrive at some convincing theory and that too at the earliest is appreciable. But the attempt seems to be misdirected to demolish others views without pin pointing the timeline when the identity of Jats as a caste/community/people was evolved and established.


We are discussing the issue without bothering to find out the first identity in timeline and indulging in formulating and demolishing various theories without putting in before the readers the real timeline tested identity of the term Jat.

Nonetheless, keep it up please as our predecessors have also done yeoman's service to our history and by indulging in discussion we are bringing the same to the knowledge of others who had perhaps not read the pioneering and later works on Jat History.

[narenderkharb]

I feel this theory is absolutely false as it betrays all historical and scientific evidences.

Theory is based on these pillars ..

1 There was no existence of this word in Indian vocabulary before Arabs who used this in derogatory sense for people engaged in lower jobs.

2 People of trans Indus region who were known as Jetae messagetae Jarta etc have absolute no connection with people known as Jats living east of Sindh river today because ..

There was no migration /attack/ movement of people where Jetae Messagetae or Jarte could be treated as present day Jats of India.

People living east of Indus were Vedic and living trans sindh or Himalayas were non vedic people.

secondly people of trans Indus region are racially & ethnically different from present day Jats of India.

As per various discussion here on Jatland site we find all these observation based on wrong suppositions ..

So let us put forward our views to critically examine Arab theory as proposed by Dr Rana.

[DrRajpalSingh]

We must thank Rana Saheb for intiating a process of Critical evaluation of supposed theory of origin and antiquity of Jats ...

Like Jat sanghate theory...of Panini

Gyat Sangha theory of Thakur Desraj

Mythical theory of origin of Jats from Shiva locks ....

All these theories were based on a wrong understanding of sanskrit references which was well pointed out by Rana Saheb an eminent Sanskrit Scholar.

Time has come when we should leave such theories and move on to find out real origin of Jats by critically evaluating every evidence.

Dr Rana himself proposed theory of Jat label given by Arabs I feel we must also critically evaluate it and expect Dr Rana to justify his theory because unless and until we are clear among ourselves how can we convince others.I hope my criticism of theory will be taken in positive spirit.

I absolutely agree with Nikhil's observation that we must fasten this process of consensus among various Jat Historians so that we can put a correct picture to outsiders as soon as possible.

We thank Dr. Rana, you and all the participants but we fail to understand where are we heading to by demolishing this theory or that theory without providing alternate reconstruction of Jat Identity over the years.

Could anyone point out the exact period/timeline when the word Jat or its some variant first appeared in any language to denote identity of the people currently known as Jats/Jutts/Jaats and so on ?

Till this time line of identity is not decided, we will keep moving in a circle and reach after a period of time there from where we started.