Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62

Thread: jatt history is bundle of lie..is it??

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Yes, they do follow it.
    Well, if they practice a system then they are part of that system. Does it seem not logical?
    But many historians consider Jats to be outside the caste system. This idea is also acceptable as Jats are considered to have come from outside India and hence they were foreigners. Why do they follow the caste system then? Or else, who amongst them follows the caste system? History sources show sakas and Kushanas to be the followers of prevalent religious practices of their time i.e., Buddhism, Hinduism. In my opinion, Hinduism and brahminism are not one and the same thing. The caste system is part of brahminical belief system, but not per se of Hinduism, I think.
    Last edited by urmiladuhan; November 4th, 2013 at 02:19 PM.
    Attention seekers and attention getters are two different class of people.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to urmiladuhan For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by urmiladuhan View Post
    Well, if they practice a system then they are part of that system. Does it seem not logical?
    But many historians consider Jats to be outside the caste system. This idea is also acceptable as Jats are considered to have come from outside India and hence they were foreigners. Why do they follow the caste system then? Or else, who amongst them follows the caste system? History sources show sakas and Kushanas to be the followers of prevalent religious practices of their time i.e., Buddhism, Hinduism. In my opinion, Hinduism and brahminism are not one and the same thing. The caste system is part of brahminical belief system, but not per se of Hinduism, I think.
    Thanks for raising so many vital issues in one post like, who is from foreign advent and who is original inhabitant of India; the religious and social moorings of Sakas and Kushanas; what is Hinduism and Brahmanism; whether Jats are under the pale of Indian caste system or outside it; and so on; and also your opinion on some of the issues raised.

    In fact, all these issues need in-depth probing.

    Views of the participants are solicited taking each issue one by one.

    Thanks and regards
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  5. #43
    All Jats consider themselves equal. In practice I have found that even Jat clans are sometimes considered to be equated with castes. Thakur Deshraj has also mentioned this fact. I observed some local people asking what caste you are? Person replied I am Mahla. It needs deep study to reach a conclusion how and why caste system got introduced in Jats.
    Laxman Burdak

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lrburdak For This Useful Post:

    cooljat (November 5th, 2013), DrRajpalSingh (November 5th, 2013), rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  7. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    All Jats consider themselves equal. In practice I have found that even Jat clans are sometimes considered to be equated with castes. Thakur Deshraj has also mentioned this fact. I observed some local people asking what caste you are? Person replied I am Mahla
    . It needs deep study to reach a conclusion how and why caste system got introduced in Jats.
    Actually surname is not caste. For accepting caste system, one needs to place oneself into one of the distinct 4 categories i.e., Brahmin, shatreya, vaish, and the untouchables (shudra). Mahla is just a surname and has nothing to do with the brahminical caste system. Perhaps sensing that followers of the caste system indicate their caste through surname, he answered Mahla.

    While we are on the caste subject, I have noticed even government paperwork in India has a column for filling up caste. Why should that be in a secular country?

    What is the definition of caste? Is it an ethnic group? If so, what defines the group? As per the brahminical caste system, it is primarily the occupation of the group that is the basis of caste system and the fact that the off springs also shall follow the same occupation, and NO ONE ELSE. Is this true about Jats too?

    Have Jats prevented other ethnic groups from practicing their occupation such as participate as soldiers, till land etc ?
    Last edited by urmiladuhan; November 5th, 2013 at 11:52 AM. Reason: Word replacement and ideas added.
    Attention seekers and attention getters are two different class of people.

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

    lrburdak (November 5th, 2013), rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  9. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    All Jats consider themselves equal. In practice I have found that even Jat clans are sometimes considered to be equated with castes. Thakur Deshraj has also mentioned this fact. I observed some local people asking what caste you are? Person replied I am Mahla. It needs deep study to reach a conclusion how and why caste system got introduced in Jats.


    Perhaps because of women they married, who were the locals and followers of the caste system.
    Attention seekers and attention getters are two different class of people.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to urmiladuhan For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  11. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by urmiladuhan View Post
    For accepting caste system, one needs to place oneself into one of the distinct 4 categories i.e., Brahmin, shatreya, vaish, and the untouchables (shudra). ?
    Jats don't follow this Varna system.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to narenderkharb For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  13. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by narenderkharb View Post
    Jats don't follow this Varna system.
    In village culture of Jats, they do follow this caste system. Brahmins (priestly class) are invited to jat homes for puja, marriage ceremonies etc and untouchables are treated as untouchables.
    Attention seekers and attention getters are two different class of people.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to urmiladuhan For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  15. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by narenderkharb View Post
    Jats don't follow this Varna system.
    In village culture of Jats, they do follow this caste system. Brahmins (priestly class) are invited to jat homes for puja, marriage ceremonies etc and untouchables are treated as untouchables.
    Attention seekers and attention getters are two different class of people.

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

    DrRajpalSingh (November 19th, 2013), rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  17. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by urmiladuhan View Post
    In village culture of Jats, they do follow this caste system. Brahmins (priestly class) are invited to jat homes for puja, marriage ceremonies etc and untouchables are treated as untouchables.
    Of course it is so.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  19. #50
    Originally Posted by urmiladuhan
    For accepting caste system, one needs to place oneself into one of the distinct 4 categories i.e., Brahmin, shatreya, vaish, and the untouchables (shudra). ?
    Originally Posted by narenderkharb
    Jats don't follow this Varna system
    Originally Posted by urmiladuhan
    In village culture of Jats, they do follow this system..






    Caste system is not accepting varna system...

    If Jats accepted this than they must have had a Varna with which they identified themselves ..

    Have we ever heard our elders putting themselves in this or that varna Why ? Because Jats never believed in Varna system...

    Cast system meant believing in different groups who are identified on the basis of their birth not Varna.
    Last edited by narenderkharb; November 11th, 2013 at 09:35 PM.

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

    DrRajpalSingh (November 19th, 2013), rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by narenderkharb View Post
    Originally Posted by urmiladuhan
    For accepting caste system, one needs to place oneself into one of the distinct 4 categories i.e., Brahmin, shatreya, vaish, and the untouchables (shudra). ?
    Originally Posted by narenderkharb
    Jats don't follow this Varna system
    Originally Posted by urmiladuhan
    In village culture of Jats, they do follow this system..






    Caste system is not accepting varna system...

    If Jats accepted this than they must have had a Varna with which they identified themselves ..

    Have we ever heard our elders putting themselves in this or that varna Why ? Because Jats never believed in Varna system...

    Cast system meant believing in different groups who are identified on the basis of their birth not Varna


    Indian caste system is a very complex issue, much debated among the anthropologists, historians, sociologists and other social scientists for many centuries.

    But none has so far succeeded in digging out so solid proofs as to apply them on each and every caste found in India as a straight jacket reply as how it originated and developed to its present status/position.

    Hence, for deciding if the Jats followed the Varana system or the origin of varana system followed the Jats is buried in the mist or darkness in the absence of solid evidence forthcoming.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  23. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by urmiladuhan View Post
    Actually surname is not caste. For accepting caste system, one needs to place oneself into one of the distinct 4 categories i.e., Brahmin, shatreya, vaish, and the untouchables (shudra). Mahla is just a surname and has nothing to do with the brahminical caste system. Perhaps sensing that followers of the caste system indicate their caste through surname, he answered Mahla.
    Urmilaji I have got some old historical evidences where caste is equated with clan. [wiki]Raja Maldeo[/wiki] was a [wiki]Chahar[/wiki] clan Jat ruler in Rajasthan in the beginning of 15th century.

    राजा मालदेव चाहर - जांगल प्रदेश के सात पट्टीदार लम्बरदारों (80 गाँवों की एक पट्टी होती थी) से पूरा लगान न उगा पाने के कारण दिल्ली का बादशाह खिज्रखां मुबारिक (सैयद वंश) नाराज हो गए। उसने उन सातों चौधरियों को पकड़ने के लिए सेनापति बाजखां पठान के नेतृतव में सेना भेजी। खिज्रखां सैयद का शासन 1414 ई. से 1421 ई. तक था। बाजखां पठान इन सात चौधरियों को गिरफ्तार कर दिल्ली लेजा रहा था। यह लश्कर कांजण से गुजरा। अपनी रानी के कहने पर राजा मालदेव ने सेनापति बाजखां पठान को इन चौधरियों को छोड़ने के लिए कहा. किन्तु वह नहीं माना। आखिर में युद्ध हुआ जिसमें मुग़ल सेना मारी गयी. इस घटना से यह कहावत प्रचलित है कि -

    माला तुर्क पछाड़याँ दे दोख्याँ सर दोट ।
    सात जात (गोत) के चौधरी, बसे चाहर की ओट ।

    ये सात चौधरी सऊ, सहारण, गोदारा, बेनीवाल, पूनिया, सिहाग और कस्वां गोत्र के थे।
    Laxman Burdak

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

    DrRajpalSingh (December 5th, 2013), rajpaldular (December 3rd, 2013)

  25. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Ok..rajpal ji..so these books don't qualify for the standard books ?

    - The History of the Panjab, by Syed Muhamad Latif (Cal- cutta, Central Press Company, Limited, 1891)
    - Sir Lepel Griffin writes in Punjab Chiefs, Vol. 1
    -
    Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society , Page 114, Gypsy Lore Society - 1912

    ..can you please tell me the timeline of books you mentioned..i don't see if any of them was written more than 40-50 years before..

    The books i have mentioned those go back to more than 100 years...will you consider it?

    I think khuswant singh never mentioned clan/rac eof ranjeet singh did he..can you please re-produce the excerpt for me..?

    Can you please tell me the clan name of ranjeet singh? Looking for a fruitful discussion on this topic

    Regards,
    History of Sikhs by J D Cunningham published in 1850's is considered to be a classic. It clearly mentions that Maha Singh, the Father of Maharaja Ranjit Singh belonged to Sukarchakia misl of the Sikh Jats. Sandhanwalia was a separate misl and so was the Bhangi.
    It would be interesting to note that Ranjit Singh snatched several territories earlier possessed by the Bhangi leaders including depriving them from possession of Lahore, which he later on developed as the capital of his kingdom.

    So there is no question of his not being the Jat/Jutt/Jatt.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  26. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    History of Sikhs by J D Cunningham published in 1850's is considered to be a classic. It clearly mentions that Maha Singh, the Father of Maharaja Ranjit Singh belonged to Sukarchakia misl of the Sikh Jats. Sandhanwalia was a separate misl and so was the Bhangi.
    It would be interesting to note that Ranjit Singh snatched several territories earlier possessed by the Bhangi leaders including depriving them from possession of Lahore, which he later on developed as the capital of his kingdom.

    So there is no question of his not being the Jat/Jutt/Jatt.
    ok rajpal ji...you are the judge here . there is no point in discussing further..because you have given the verdict. Can you please confirm what was his clan name?
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to prashantacmet For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (December 6th, 2013)

  28. #55
    This is absolutely ridiculous. It seems that you have fallen into the trap of the modern-day Sikh historians (largely of tarkhan (carpenter "skilled" labourer / artisan) and khatri ("munshi" [admin] or "hatti vaale" [shop keeping] backgrounds - those who have traditionally ancestrally occupied a lower strata of society than the Zamindar Jatt, and now wish to re-write Punjabs political and socio-economic history with a religious undertone [emphasizing 'egalitarianism' which never really existed) backed only by fabricated lies and unverifiable events).


    JatLand.com would be the last place I would expect to read this sort of rubbish (let alone expect someone to believe it!)




    (1) Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a Jatt - this is commonly known in Punjabi culture and verifiable through various contemporary sources of the time.
    * First of all - all LEGITIMATE wives of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (legally/religiously married) where off Jatt Sardar/Chaudhary backgrounds (Sardar was a term used to denote a powerful Chaudhary/maalik/zamindaar who took autonomous control of territories - esp. during the fall of Aurangzeb, and the time of Ahmed Shah Abdali... infact many Muslim Jatt clans of Punjab where referred to as Sardars in history i.e. Kharral Chaudhries and Sial Chaudhries in the folk work Heer Warris Shah - proving that the title was in no way exclusive to any religion but rather cultural for rural-elites...it is only within the last 40-50 years MAX it has been hijacked by "turbaned and bearded" Sikhs as a religious title). I could go on about the re-writing of history and an attempt to re-define cultural terms - which has occurred after Indian Independence and the Punjab Land Reforms, by insecure Non-Jatt Sikhs.


    * Maharaja Ranjit Singh's ancestors:
    Bhara Mall Jatt -> Budh Singh ("Desu") -> Naudh Singh -> Charat Singh -> Mahan Singh -> Ranjit Singh

    Budh Singh was a cattle thief (a cultural trait amongst the Jatts and Gujjars of the Gujranwala region (even those occupying the upper strata of rural society as Zamindars/Chaudhries/Sardars of huge estates); just read Baburnama for Babur's own experience with Jatts and Gujjars of this region). Budh Singh owned 25 acres of land, 3 ploughs, and later founded (and became Chaudhry/Sardar of) the village Sukerchak - his "jagir"/fief.

    * Maharaja Ranjit Singhs ancestors where the Chaudhries/Founders/Maaliks of the village Sukerchak in Gujranwala (hence why Ranjit Singh's and his ancestors immediate misl was called "Sukerchakia" misl not "Sandhawalia"... It is only later that members of the clan broke away and founded another Jagir whose main village was Sandhanwala [in the Sialkot district].


    * Sansi is a Jatt sub-clan/gotra of the Sandhu clan [WHICH IS STILL very prominent in Gujranwala and Sialkot!]. Obviously, because Sansi is a sub-clan of the Sandhu clan, there are going to be less "Sansi"s than there are "Sandhu"s. Talking about small clans: I'm a Berring Jatt, there aren't many of us, but official land records, family history and bard tales all suggest that we held our village for the last 12 or so generations (excluding my generation and my father's generation). HENCE: Size/population of a gotra/clan doesn't mean anything.


    customs/traditions of maharaja ranjeet singh did not match to jatts as sati-pratha
    this is false... ONLY Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rajput wives (he wasn't even legitimately/religiously married to them, I think) and dancing girls committed Satti (from what I can remember of (I think) Lord Aukland's accounts)... but the fact is, his favorite/legitimate/"authorized" Jatt wives did not commit satti, i.e. atleast Maharanji Jinda (Aulakh Jatti) didn't.


    Jatt misals of that time did not recruit mazhabi sikhs (sikh churas) in their misals, sukerchakia misal was having lot of mazhabi
    Zamindars recruited and fed every Tom, Dick and Harry they could in order to up their number of recruits/militia. It would be stupid not to (who doesn't want a larger militia in that situation?) ... However, officers/leaders/"Sardars" of these Misls where almost always Jatts (or another zamindar tribe i.e. Gujjar), and only these zamindar tribes could capture and hold villages [Mazhabis, Chammars, Tharkhans, etc. where under the patronage and the social hierarchy of the baahi/tiller/small-holding peasant, let alone the Chaudhry/Sardar - hence they couldn't possibly capture a village even if they wanted to - i.e. because families, relatives etc. where dependant on Jatt peasants and chiefs for grain etc. It was only after Jassa Singh (Ramgarhia/THarkhan) inherited his misl from a Jatt (who's own sons where simply not interested, possibly because relations where bad) that the dynamics of power temporarily changed between the two communities in certain territories. This was rectified when Maharaja Ranjit Singh united all the misls to form his Kingdom - he immediately confiscated all Ramgharia/THarkhan jagirs (again, see Lord Aukland's accounts). Truth is, even Ramgarhias (one of only two non-Jatt misls) where not considered socially equal by the Sardars of the Jatt misls. It was only later in history that Maharaja Ranjit Singh became extremely liberal at rewarding non-zamindars with land.


    none of the british historian recognized ranjeet singh as jatt, he was called SANSI. jatt historians after independence claiming sansi -sandhawalia from jatt lineage.
    , again, see Lord Aukland's personal accounts. Obviously, culturally (in Punjab atleast), his own clan is going to be his major identity, not his entire tribe (because he has any enemies of the same tribe)... feudal titles where held by members of individual CLANS, not by entire tribe/race/ethnicity/caste!




    (2) With regards to Baba Deep Singh, he was definately a Jatt:
    sikh-reality.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/baba-deep-singh-shahid.html (quote from Naveen Panth Parkash, 1880 AD, Giani Gian Singh) which is considered accurate by Nihang and Non-Nihang Sikhs. Clearly states him being a Jatt of the Village Dhukohe, near Jallandhar.


    deep singh faimly was not having an land, after his sacrifice land was given to him.
    ... can you prove this? Jatt peasants & zamindars provided resources TO the "Sikh" panth/cult/"Gurus", not the other way round.


    Even today in his village , his house is adjoining mazhabi not jatts?
    ... Well, his village is in Jallandhar, and the entire Doaba region in general has been invaded by Choode/Mazhabis and Chamaar ever since Jatts started emigrating abroad in large numbers. Even the MLA of the region has been a chamaar (thanks to reservation) ever since reservations came about (infact, the chamar MLA family (his son, and grandson, also MLA) openly use "CHAUDHARY" as their SURNAME! - despite having no connection to any Jat linage or any other land-owning/feudal lineage, - they are clearly and obviously chamaars!). I know this because my village is in Doaba too, and I could tell you EVERYTHING about the shift in power and the hijacking of Jatt tribe/clan identities that has taken place in the last 50 years.


    PS: You want to know the best way of learning about Jatt history and heritage? Stop reading **** from the internet, and go talk to a real educated Jatt belonging to the region who knows about his ancestors.




    And yes, Mazhabis do have Jatt surnames/gotra/clan-names in Punjab NOW, just as they write "Sharma" etc... but this has ONLY been the case after they started acquiring land due to reservation and the de-feudalizing of Punjab under Punjab Land Reform acts (which took place 3 years after the Indian Independence). Hence there is a saying amongst (true) Jatt Sardars/Chaudhries of Punjab that a clan/gotra name isn't enough to verify a true Jatt, always ask for the ancestral village, the location of his ancestral zamin (land), and his grandfather and great grandfathers name, and of known rishtedars (relatives).




    "akali phule singh was also a mazhabi not jatt as per them...surprised!!", "ATWAL jatts of today are from mazhabi lineage.", Even jatt historian shamsher singh has accepted that"

    Mazhabis still lack an idenity and an icon as a community - hence it's in there best interest to hijack iconic figures from history on "religious" grounds. If they claim that Baba Deep Singh and Akali Phoola Singh where Mazhabi's, then why don't they present solid contemporary reference from the time period?!

    I've never heard of Shamsher Singh, but I can tell you, if he is claiming this without any tangible proof or theory, he is most likely a fool.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to ZaildarTejSeng For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 7th, 2014)

  30. #56
    (3)
    few mazhabi joined jatts bortherhood as they acquired land.

    I explained this earlier. This is a very modern phenomena.




    200-300 yeras back jatt was not a group in punjab but was a culture, whoever owned land and was doing farming, he was called jatt
    - it was the same concept as rajput. any tom,dick and harry who ruled even few villages started calling himself rajput. Similary jatt ethinicty was corrupted in last 300-400 years, many other community acquired land, they got mixed with jatts and jatts accepted them



    That is utter rubbish. First of all, that would mean all landed Hindu Jatt tribes and big chaudhries during the Mughal era should've been referred to as Rajputs?
    Then how come many Rajputs during the same era (especially around northern Rajasthan region) where poppy farmers, whilst only a few owned villages or jagirs under a Raja of another clan? And why is it that the Jatts of Punjab ranged from Sardars/Chaudhries/Jagirdars to wealthy yeomans with plentiful land, to husbandmen with little land, to landless tillers whom made their living off banditry... HENCE: Jatt is TRIBAL identity, so are Mazhabis etc. (it's another matter that they occupy lower strata in society, but that's a different topic), Rajput is a cultural identity NOT tribal - it become very unpopular in the larger Punjab region (various reasons), hence why Rajputs are not found in greater numbers in Greater Punjab region compared to the rest of India.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to ZaildarTejSeng For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 7th, 2014)

  32. #57
    Zaildar Sahab!.thanks for the detailed reply ...please note that

    - no intention to demean jatt in this thread, my gotra is vaidwan/baidwan, we have a single jat(vedic or say hindu) village in West UP and I belong to that village, rest of the villages are around chandigarh. 90% of vaidwan are jatt-sikh. Despite the religion barriers we have very strong bonding even today with each other.

    - Internet is flooded with information what I posted here. Historians have different viewpoints on that and each and every point what I raised is controversial in sikh history. If there is fire then only smoke will be. why historians are not divided on Hari singh dhillon and nawab kapur singh virk, why only for ranjeet singh? because there is a gap in his ancestral line. I don't believe that rajneet was not a jatt and I even don't believe that he was a jatt. i am just trying to get my facts right. search is still on to pacify myself.

    - I have been to doaba and this region is highly populated by chammars/majhabi . As far as doaba jatts are concerned , I heard that majha and malwai even don't marry with doabi jatt because they think that their lineage is corrupted. is it so?

    - by the way, one one hand you are asking me to refrain from internet and on the other hand you are giving a blogspot link to prove your point.I am sort of confused!!

    - Can you give some pointers about this Lord auckland account? who is this and why should I believe on his account?

    - do you know any so-called educated jatt who can give me a gilmpse of real jatt history. I would like to meet him.
    Last edited by prashantacmet; September 19th, 2014 at 02:01 PM.
    Become more and more innocent, less knowledgeable and more childlike. Take life as fun - because that's precisely what it is!

  33. #58
    It is a bit out of context but I want to know from Gurtej Singh Birring to Kindly explain some thing about Birring. Is it clan or surname based on some other factor ?
    Laxman Burdak

  34. #59
    http://www.preservearticles.com/2012...kh-empire.html
    burdak ji read about ranjeet singh.but i dont know about birring surname

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    Zaildar Sahab!.thanks for the detailed reply ...please note that

    My pleasure Vaidwan sahab! My apologies if I came across to aggressive. I often get quite passionate when I hear of this "Sikh History" rubbish being spread across the internet as if these recently fabricated lies are the absolute historic, socio-political and economic truth. [In fact, you'll find that alot of this "Sikh" history doesn't even talk about social political and economic factors! and when it does, there are many inconsistencies with scholars who study contemporary sources from the time period!)




    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    - no intention to demean jatt in this thread, my gotra is vaidwan/baidwan, we have a single jat(vedic or say hindu) village in West UP and I belong to that village, rest of the villages are around chandigarh. 90% of vaidwan are jatt-sikh. Despite the religion barriers we have very strong bonding even today with each other.

    I completely understand. Honestly, I'm pleased to hear that religious dogma (particularly "Sikh") has not affected Vaidwan/Baidwan tribal/clan identity.




    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    - Internet is flooded with information what I posted here. Historians have different viewpoints on that and each and every point what I raised is controversial in sikh history. If there is fire then only smoke will be. why historians are not divided on Hari singh dhillon and nawab kapur singh virk, why only for ranjeet singh? because there is a gap in his ancestral line. I don't believe that rajneet was not a jatt and I even don't believe that he was a jatt. i am just trying to get my facts right. search is still on to pacify myself.
    Sikh history, admitially, is full of ****. Give me evidence of the battle of Chamkaur that wasn't written by the "Gurus" own marrasis/bards/bhatts/poets as he attempted to emulate the lifestyle of a pahadi Raja by establishing a fort in (later re-named) Anandpur at the expense (donations of) the (admittedly stupid) Jatt Chaudhries of the time. But that's just my opinion.

    Why Sikh history is so contreversial is because non-Jatts have economically grown and surpassed their feudal overlords and zamindars they where bound too, and now, would like to have an "ancestral claim" to the land, which they make through fabricating "Sikh history" or an identity of a "Sikh quom". They can only do that once they disconnect important feudal figures from the Jatts and attach them to their own identity (just as they do with the Sikh Regiment, etc. but that's a different story).



    Because the former didn't hold kingdoms but 'jagirs'. And they would like to claim the glory of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom (fabricate some sort of religiously patronizing history around it, like they do, when in essence it was a SUKERCHAKIA kingdom of the SANSI Jatts of Gujranwala) and hence call it their own (as if it was a 'Sikh' republic and the land a "birthright for all Sikhs" (just the very thought of that is ridiculous as most of the "huge" jagirdars and chaudhary where Muslims in West Punjab even up until the British Empire and the formation of Pakistan! and the guys claiming that the kingdom was/is a birthright for "Sikhs" would most likely have been agricultural laborers under the grips of feudalism). Truth is, it was a Sukerchakia kingdom, not a "Sikh" kingdom - and a republic of Zamindars who held their estates/villages, and made up much of the military (excluding the small portion of 'Akali nihangs' (who where sometimes a menace to Maharaja Ranjit Singh just as they where to Maharaja of Patiala) - all of which the emperor Ranjit Singh kept under check by appointing wazirs and diwans (usually non-zamindar, scholarly, learned figures - pandits, sheikhs, fakirs etc).


    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    - I have been to doaba and this region is highly populated by chammars/majhabi . As far as doaba jatts are concerned , I heard that majha and malwai even don't marry with doabi jatt because they think that their lineage is corrupted. is it so?

    Unfortunately, Jatts in Punjab even have stereotypes for villages, let alone which size of the rivers they live on!


    But it is true, Doaba Jatts, are (1) very difficult to find, (2) after the land reforms, members of every community have land (even more so than Jatts) and start acting like Jatts.


    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    - by the way, one one hand you are asking me to refrain from internet and on the other hand you are giving a blogspot link to prove your point.I am sort of confused!!

    The blogspot link was only to quote from 'Naveen Panth Parkash' written by Giani Gian Singh *whom Sikhs themselves, consider authentic* though it was written in 1880AD. I would've photocopied the original manuscript if I had it. It isn't someones opinion (like you'll find on the internet).


    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    - Can you give some pointers about this Lord auckland account? who is this and why should I believe on his account?
    Because he was someone who accompanied and spent time with the Maharaja himself, got to know his lifestyle, beliefs and values... not some munshi bhapa or tharkhan writing on the matters of "Sikh history" on the internet in attempt to be an intellectual on the matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by prashantacmet View Post
    - do you know any so-called educated jatt who can give me a gilmpse of real jatt history. I would like to meet him.
    Unfortunately, most Jatts have been engrossed in the Khalistani/fanatic/extremist "Sikh quom" propaganda which germinated due to the self-interest of the British empire, and later propagated during the 1970's and 1980's in Punjab. In terms of books, I would start with:

    -> Robber noblemen: a study of the political system of the Sikh Jats
    Joyce Pettigrew, Routledge & Kegan Paul PLC; 1st Edition edition (3 April 1975)

    -> The Crisis of Empire In Mughal North India, Awadh and the Punjab, 1707-48
    Muzaffar Alam, Delhi Oxford University Press 1986

    -> Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten
    Rajmohan Gandhi, Aleph Book Company (Aug 2013)

    -> Ranjit Singh and the Sikh Barrier Between Our Growing Empire and Central Asia
    Lepel Griffin, Oxford : Clarendon Press

Posting Permissions

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