Were the great ancient kings like Chandragupt, Ashok and Anangpal Tomar not Jats ??

[drssrana2003]

True Sir....I am totally speechless now....very unfortunate !!
After reading his review about the Jat origin and specially about the work done by our previous Jat scholars/historians, only one sentence I want to say here...."isko kahte hain barso ki mehnat par pani ferna.....aur apne pairo par khud kulhadi marna". If we have differences on any issue and we are criticising it then we must include our detail explanation about that.

> But Mr. Rana only criticized the work done by Mr. Dahiya, rather giving his own solid reasons about the origin of Jats.
> Similarly If he(Dr. Rana) can explain the term "Gupta" then what about the "Maurya" term used as a surname of Chandragupt. He must had to explain it also.
> It was his responsibility that before neglecting and rejecting anyone's research/finding, he must also give full authentic research/work done by himself.
> Most important thing is that, the people like him must rise above the competitiveness among the writers/historians and should work for the Jats to unveil the hidden truths about Jat history and glory.

As we said "India First" regarding with national point of view....we must have the similar line for social point of view and that should be....."Jat First" and we should put everything behind this line. This will solve all the problems among us(the Jats) and the people like Mr. Rana should follow this.

But Sir, again it's very unfortunate that our own people stand in front of us.

Nikhil Ji,
I am not determined to take a predetermined position on the question of the identity of the people who call themselves and are called by others aed Jats. Finding the theories offered on the question by many well meaning and respected writwers unacceptable in view of my own studies over a number of years and vetted through discusions at various fora and the extensive and solid evidence coming forth I ventured to form tentative view on the issue,the initial formulations of which I posted in the form of a review (partial) of Shri Dahiya's book. Due to certain circumstances that review could not be completed.You may kindly note that I have shown my disagreements with Shri Dahiya on the basis of incontrovertible evidence which has been cited on the spot with references.
However, I have worked further and put my ideas on the issue in a book that i have recently published, namely 'Jat, The label And the People' Herein I have tried to show that the Label (caste name) 'Jat' and the people (who are called 'Jat' should be studiedly support and hold the view independently. I whole heartedly support and hold thwe view, as many amongst us do that the people are the truest successors (among many others known by different labels) of the vedic Aryans. If we prefer to stick to the views put forward by some writers in spite of the glaring fallacies we commit no blasphamy. The contrary would also be true. I suppose.

By the way you had raised the question of what Gupta stands for. Let me briefly say that it is not at least the same as the modern day connotation of a caste group i. e. the 'bania'. The 'Dharana' gotra of the Gupta kings ( though hinted at in one reference alone. and I accept it as crucial evidence) makes it quite clear. But giving the ancient people a later day caste label 'Jat'. If today's Dharana gotra jats claim ancestory from those ancient Dharana people no one can and should have objection. There may be some among the later day day Rajputs who might have Dharana gotra and may claim a similar ancestory. Who would object? After all there is something like shared ancestory. Don't we have large number of gotras over lapping among the modern day jats and Rajputs? Kindly ponder.
In the end ,I would request you to excuse me for my reluctance to agree with what i believe goes against solid evidence.

[prashantacmet]

Calm down Nikhil Nehra!.

You are going too fast. the excitement in your posts shows that you want to change all the history overnight. There have been hundreds of historians who wrote and researched about this. Everyone has his opinion and storage of evidences (right or wrong). Dahiya is one of them. It's not like that what dahiya wrote is Gospel truth ( even after his great efforts to unearth jat history) and others were just rubbish.

If you are really keen, take part in all history discussions. Though there have been many discussions among the elites but all those threads are dying slowly. People are stuck!

so dear slow down your pace and don't shoot Mr. rana....khamakha main!!..he may be right or wrong..he is right here . convicne him withyour logic and evidences


and yes I agree with you, we need to chaage present course of history, being taught to us ( it is pro-rajputs). But I am not in favor of making it pro-jat now. Only truth should prevail

Anyway, Please take out some time and read these discussions first with open minds and keep discussing:

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...er-discussions

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

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...orical-Sources

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...-Reintrepreted

[prashantacmet]

Raja Anagpal Tomar:-
All of you know that he was a Tomar Jat king of Delhi (near 1000-1100 AD) and maternal grandfather of Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer (Chauhan Jat of Ajmer). He went to a holy trip to Pushkar and handover his empire to Prithviraj for safty in meanwhile. But when he reached in his state after finishing his trip Prithviraj refused him to give his empire and a war began between Chauhans Jats and Toamar Jats in Delhi. As a result Tomars must had to go near Gwalior where they created their new empire.

my take on this:

Apart from desh khap of tomar jat in Baraut (salaklan tomar), there are more than 50 vilalgesof tomar rajputs in Ghaziabad and they claim their descent from Ananagpal.

Tomar of gwalior are present day rajput not jats.

so anagpal may be arajput or may be a jat or just a person from tomar clan, which later divided among rajput, jat and gujjar. Keep yourself open.

[prashantacmet]

Dr. Rajpal ji,

I weould like to be enlightened regarding the historical source/ evidence that describes harshavardhana asd a 'Virka'. Kindly respond.

Maine suna hai wo "bains" tha..................

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...uj-online-book

[NikhilNehra]

Calm down Nikhil Nehra!.

You are going too fast. the excitement in your posts shows that you want to change all the history overnight. There have been hundreds of historians who wrote and researched about this. Everyone has his opinion and storage of evidences (right or wrong). Dahiya is one of them. It's not like that what dahiya wrote is Gospel truth ( even after his great efforts to unearth jat history) and others were just rubbish.

If you are really keen, take part in all history discussions. Though there have been many discussions among the elites but all those threads are dying slowly. People are stuck!

so dear slow down your pace and don't shoot Mr. rana....khamakha main!!..he may be right or wrong..he is right here . convicne him withyour logic and evidences


and yes I agree with you, we need to chaage present course of history, being taught to us ( it is pro-rajputs). But I am not in favor of making it pro-jat now. Only truth should prevail

Anyway, Please take out some time and read these discussions first with open minds and keep discussing:

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...er-discussions

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

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...orical-Sources

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...-Reintrepreted

My dear Jat brother,

Sabse pahli aur sabse zyada important baat, mai yaha apne Jat bhaiyon par bomb daagne ya "shoot" karne nahi aaya....for me Jatland is my another home. All of its member are my dearest, loving and respectable ones. I am here for only Jat brotherhood, which is (I think so) solely one of the main theme behind the creation of the Jatland forum. If my posts hurt you or any other member then sorry for that. Because then it will hurt my own base theme of Jat brotherhood and I can't even think about doing this.......also, I am not in favor in making the history pro-Jat. I believe in to collect evidences and proves..... One more thing (as my Intro) I would like to tell you that I am not a history student, not a scholar, not a re-searcher. I am just a Jat, who have some queries, and lot of enthusiasm to find the hidden truth about Jats history..........but I think my post hurt you because I put "Jat first" principal ahead and everything is behind this. That's the reason I criticized the review of Mr. SS Rana. Don't take it personal or otherwise.

Dear brother, now I come to my "fast pace"... I think it's because somewhere I have firm belief in my all Jats researcher/scholars/historians, whether they are on Jatland or outside. I know they all have done a lot of hard-work to collect worth full evidences. But how much we still need to dig out for evidences.....aur kitne gaddhe khodne hain hume abhi itihas ke....are we not focusing on whatever we collect till now? A lot of sufficient work is done already. Our Jatland website is almost 15 years old (I guess).......The main concern is "consensus" and this is the actual hindrance....that's the thing I want to emphasize here. Yes I agree that we could have different opinions but finally we have to reach on consensus so that truth can be reveal but in reachable time-frame......"kahin der na ho jaye"... And this is the main thing behind my that post....we must have to speed up our "consensus process", which is very slow.

Cheers !!

[NikhilNehra]

my take on this:

Apart from desh khap of tomar jat in Baraut (salaklan tomar), there are more than 50 vilalgesof tomar rajputs in Ghaziabad and they claim their descent from Ananagpal.

Tomar of gwalior are present day rajput not jats.

so anagpal may be arajput or may be a jat or just a person from tomar clan, which later divided among rajput, jat and gujjar. Keep yourself open.

My brother,
As you may also knowthat Rajput is neither a caste nor a race...That's the different topic...My point of concern is that if it is contradictory to categorized his hierarchy to any caste then why he is mentioned as Rajput by non-Jat historians as well as in wiki?.....Did we collect the evidences from our Tomar Jats living near Delhi and Baghpat? What they said? What is their opinion about that?..that's the thing I will again say, it's not the pro-Rajput affect at all. Fault lies within us (the same word consensus).....please give your opinion on that...and yes I am always open .

[NikhilNehra]

Nikhil Ji,
I am not determined to take a predetermined position on the question of the identity of the people who call themselves and are called by others aed Jats. Finding the theories offered on the question by many well meaning and respected writwers unacceptable in view of my own studies over a number of years and vetted through discusions at various fora and the extensive and solid evidence coming forth I ventured to form tentative view on the issue,the initial formulations of which I posted in the form of a review (partial) of Shri Dahiya's book. Due to certain circumstances that review could not be completed.You may kindly note that I have shown my disagreements with Shri Dahiya on the basis of incontrovertible evidence which has been cited on the spot with references.
However, I have worked further and put my ideas on the issue in a book that i have recently published, namely 'Jat, The label And the People' Herein I have tried to show that the Label (caste name) 'Jat' and the people (who are called 'Jat' should be studiedly support and hold the view independently. I whole heartedly support and hold thwe view, as many amongst us do that the people are the truest successors (among many others known by different labels) of the vedic Aryans. If we prefer to stick to the views put forward by some writers in spite of the glaring fallacies we commit no blasphamy. The contrary would also be true. I suppose.

By the way you had raised the question of what Gupta stands for. Let me briefly say that it is not at least the same as the modern day connotation of a caste group i. e. the 'bania'. The 'Dharana' gotra of the Gupta kings ( though hinted at in one reference alone. and I accept it as crucial evidence) makes it quite clear. But giving the ancient people a later day caste label 'Jat'. If today's Dharana gotra jats claim ancestory from those ancient Dharana people no one can and should have objection. There may be some among the later day day Rajputs who might have Dharana gotra and may claim a similar ancestory. Who would object? After all there is something like shared ancestory. Don't we have large number of gotras over lapping among the modern day jats and Rajputs? Kindly ponder.
In the end ,I would request you to excuse me for my reluctance to agree with what i believe goes against solid evidence.

Dear Rana Ji,
> In my previous posts my only point of concern was to make an energetic and collective focus on fast processing of consensus between you scholars/historians. I am a simple Jat, I am not a historian/researcher by occupation at all. All my grievances are about the dismantle-history, which is taught to us in our class rooms or colleges, even on Wikipedia. We want to see the truth about Jats over there.

> Now I got confused about the clan of Chandragupt, whether he belongs to Dharan gotra or More/Mourya or else? In your research you emphasized only on Dharan, but not on Maurya. Please clear.

Finally sorry if you hurt. But please try to speed up the process of consensus among all of you scholars at least on Jatland. That would be in the beneficial to all of us, the Jats.

[prashantacmet]

> Now I got confused about the clan of Chandragupt, whether he belongs to Dharan gotra or More/Mourya or else? In your research you emphasized only on Dharan, but not on Maurya. Please clear.

.

Nikhil, rana ji is talking about second chnadragupta (after christ era), he was of dharan gotra ..charadupta->samundragupta

you were taling about chandragupta maurya (before christ) chandragupta->bindusaar->ashok

[prashantacmet]

My dear Jat brother,

Sabse pahli aur sabse zyada important baat, mai yaha apne Jat bhaiyon par bomb daagne ya "shoot" karne nahi aaya....for me Jatland is my another home. All of its member are my dearest, loving and respectable ones. I am here for only Jat brotherhood, which is (I think so) solely one of the main theme behind the creation of the Jatland forum. If my posts hurt you or any other member then sorry for that. Because then it will hurt my own base theme of Jat brotherhood and I can't even think about doing this.......also, I am not in favor in making the history pro-Jat. I believe in to collect evidences and proves..... One more thing (as my Intro) I would like to tell you that I am not a history student, not a scholar, not a re-searcher. I am just a Jat, who have some queries, and lot of enthusiasm to find the hidden truth about Jats history..........but I think my post hurt you because I put "Jat first" principal ahead and everything is behind this. That's the reason I criticized the review of Mr. SS Rana. Don't take it personal or otherwise.

Dear brother, now I come to my "fast pace"... I think it's because somewhere I have firm belief in my all Jats researcher/scholars/historians, whether they are on Jatland or outside. I know they all have done a lot of hard-work to collect worth full evidences. But how much we still need to dig out for evidences.....aur kitne gaddhe khodne hain hume abhi itihas ke....are we not focusing on whatever we collect till now? A lot of sufficient work is done already. Our Jatland website is almost 15 years old (I guess).......The main concern is "consensus" and this is the actual hindrance....that's the thing I want to emphasize here. Yes I agree that we could have different opinions but finally we have to reach on consensus so that truth can be reveal but in reachable time-frame......"kahin der na ho jaye"... And this is the main thing behind my that post....we must have to speed up our "consensus process", which is very slow.

Cheers !!

Nikhil, I appreciate your zeal....I am also not a historian or research scholar...just interested in jat history..10 years back when I first read few books related to Jat history..I was also willing to change everything overnight...but gradually I learnt it's a very puzzled subject. I also firmly believe that jats have a glorious past but we need "concrete evidences" to show the world.

Rana ji is a type of person who does not move an inch ahead until he is satisfied I guess that is the right way..I am not saying that his viewpoint is always right...I have different opinion from him on many topics..but I can not say only I am right..........we all disagree to be agree..so keep reading and pouring!

[drssrana2003]

Dear Rana Ji,
> In my previous posts my only point of concern was to make an energetic and collective focus on fast processing of consensus between you scholars/historians. I am a simple Jat, I am not a historian/researcher by occupation at all. All my grievances are about the dismantle-history, which is taught to us in our class rooms or colleges, even on Wikipedia. We want to see the truth about Jats over there.

> Now I got confused about the clan of Chandragupt, whether he belongs to Dharan gotra or More/Mourya or else? In your research you emphasized only on Dharan, but not on Maurya. Please clear.

Finally sorry if you hurt. But please try to speed up the process of consensus among all of you scholars at least on Jatland. That would be in the beneficial to all of us, the Jats.

Nikhil Ji,
Please relax. I did not see any hurtful thing in your post referring to my views. I can understand your co cern. I had a similar tenor in my younger days . Please feel free to criticise. It would help me more if some argument is advanced with supporting authentic evidence. Like you I am also not a trained historian. You can count me as the fringewala. But I am genuinely interested in history and of late in Jat
history, though in a limited way.

[drssrana2003]

Yuwan Chwang says that Harsha was of Vaishe caste. This term has been variously interpreted.1. Vais-Rajput. Bains- Jat, Vaishya -today's Vaishya i.e.Bania. This only makes us think about a common antecedent i.e.ancestary.

[DrRajpalSingh]

Yuwan Chwang says that Harsha was of Vaishe caste. This term has been variously interpreted.1. Vais-Rajput. Bains- Jat, Vaishya -today's Vaishya i.e.Bania. This only makes us think about a common antecedent i.e.ancestary.

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."

[DrRajpalSingh]

....................

> Now I got confused about the clan of Chandragupt, whether he belongs to Dharan gotra or More/Mourya or else? In your research you emphasized only on Dharan, but not on Maurya. Please clear.

...............

No need to be confused on names of Jat rulers named as Chandragupta. They are :

1. Chandragupta Murya was the founder of Maurya Empire, succeeded by Bindusara and Asoka, the great. The empire lasted c.322 BC to 187 BC.

2. Chandragupta Dharan [320 AD to 335] gotra Jat was founder of the famous Gupta Empire. He was succeeded by his son Samudragupta [335 AD to 380 AD] and by Chandragupta II [380AD to c 414 AD] popularly known as Chandragupta Vikramaditya also. The Dharan Empire is known as golden age of ancient India also.

[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."

REFERENCES:

1. hIEUEN tSANG'S tRAVELS,by WATTERS, vOL. I. p 343

2. The Life of Hieuen Tsang by, Shamani Hui Li, p. 63

[drssrana2003]

On inscriptional evidence:


1. Reign of Samudragupta= 335 A.D. - 375-6 A.D.

2. Reign of Chandragupta = 375-76 A.- 412-3 A.D.

[DrRajpalSingh]

On inscriptional evidence:


1. Reign of Samudragupta= 335 A.D. - 375-6 A.D.

2. Reign of Chandragupta = 375-76 A.- 412-3 A.D.

Yes to 1. I stand corrected.
Regarding point 2, it is believed by some that Samudragupta was succeeded by Ramgupta in 375 and dethroned by his brother Chandragupta II in 380 AD who continued to rule upto c.414 AD and was succeeded by his son Kumargupta.

[drssrana2003]

Yes to 1. I stand corrected.
Regarding point 2, it is believed by some that Samudragupta was succeeded by Ramgupta in 375 and dethroned by his brother Chandragupta II in 380 AD who continued to rule upto c.414 AD and was succeeded by his son Kumargupta.

1.The Mathura Inscription of C.GII dated rfegnal year 5 and Gupta era 61. It comes to 375-76A.D. as the first known date of C.G-II.

2. The Sanchi Stone Inscription of C.G-II dated 93 Gupta era comes to 412-13 A.D.

3. Ramagupta has to be accommodated for a brief period just before C.G._II.

[NikhilNehra]

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"

Bhai mere.....what should I say now, I am speechless......As most of us love the Gurdas Maan's lines of a song describing Jats, as you may also heard...ek line pesh karta hu, apni baat samjhane ke liye....."mai sidha sa mannas, bal ferna aawe manne....(laar lapet karna nahi janta)".....I don't have diplomatic answers....
And at last I would only say... sou baattan ki ek baat: .......Dear Bhai, wo "message" jo mai Jatland ke madhyam se "Jat kaum ke kuch samajhdar" logo tak pahuchana chahta tha, wo un tak pahoch chuka hai......and I am very glad and satisfied to see that "they have noticed it" and have forwarded their steps towards it. Even some of them are already aware about that main principal that I wanted to raise here................. May be this would be my last message for this thread.... But a lot of Jats are waiting around there to see the hidden truths about themselves like me. I am just a spectator nothing else, as I earlier told to you. I will wait but constantly watch whether you scholars/researchers have learnt from the past mistakes OR just repeating the old errors that our ancient Jats have done......

Summary: ...Ek dusre ka samman karen...!!
... apne old Historians ko samman den...unke kiye gaye efforts/researches ka laabh uthayen.. !!
....make a collective efforts to find out evidances (but with limit of contradictions)..!!
......and most important, I will repeat again..make fast consensus by having a common goal, common agenda and collective efforts to unveil the truth ...!!


Sabko Ram Ram...

Jai JAT......Jai JAT Ekta !!

[DrRajpalSingh]

Bhai mere.....what should I say now, I am speechless......As most of us love the Gurdas Maan's lines of a song describing Jats, as you may also heard...ek line pesh karta hu, apni baat samjhane ke liye....."mai sidha sa mannas, bal ferna aawe manne....(laar lapet karna nahi janta)".....I don't have diplomatic answers....
And at last I would only say... sou baattan ki ek baat: .......Dear Bhai, wo "message" jo mai Jatland ke madhyam se "Jat kaum ke kuch samajhdar" logo tak pahuchana chahta tha, wo un tak pahoch chuka hai......and I am very glad and satisfied to see that "they have noticed it" and have forwarded their steps towards it. Even some of them are already aware about that main principal that I wanted to raise here................. May be this would be my last message for this thread.... But a lot of Jats are waiting around there to see the hidden truths about themselves like me. I am just a spectator nothing else, as I earlier told to you. I will wait but constantly watch whether you scholars/researchers have learnt from the past mistakes OR just repeating the old errors that our ancient Jats have done......

Summary: ...Ek dusre ka samman karen...!!
... apne old Historians ko samman den...unke kiye gaye efforts/researches ka laabh uthayen.. !!
....make a collective efforts to find out evidances (but with limit of contradictions)..!!
......and most important, I will repeat again..make fast consensus by having a common goal, common agenda and collective efforts to unveil the truth ...!!


Sabko Ram Ram...

Jai JAT......Jai JAT Ekta !!

In the meantime, the discussion on the etymology of the word Jat continues on the thread :

• http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...rough-the-Ages

• Those who are interested to participate in the discussion are welcome to share their valuable insights on the topic.

[paulgill]

Names of Porus, Kanishka, Famous Gupta dynasty [Dharan Gotra Jats], Harshavardhana of Virka clan may also be included as Jat rulers of yore after making historical facts clearer by producing irrefutable evidences to support the claim.

I wonder if anybody have looked into Dharan > Dharani being Dahae + Parni(Parthians)?