05-23-2006, 03:10 AM
Now that moderators have re opened this thread, we may be wise to take time take a few, moments to review the situation.
As I see it, the purpose of site like India- Forum, is to be forum where all people can discuss and contribute, to discuss past events , learn from them, and look for a better solution to the problems of today and tomorrow, faced by our society and nation..
We should also, quietly, take a few moments to thank those who have organized this forum, and spend so much of their time on it.
When we discuss history, one of the purposes is to be open to information that develops, and also to be open to make corrections to the distortions that have occurred in previous years, centuries, and millennium.
When new information comes, it will disturb the existing equilibrium, and complacency- one excellent example is the Aryan Invasion theory, which has seen shown as bunkum, but existing positions are difficult to give up, especially for those who have staked their careers, reputations, livelihoods, and identity upon them.
This is exactly the same position of Indian history, where the bulk of it , as we taught it today, came to us by Colonial historians and then by Indians historians, who had their axes to grind- the JNU Marxist crowd - Irfan Habib is one such example. On the other we have those who simply wish to push a âHinduâ version of history, where Indian society evolved along the Hindu Religion's four fold caste system.
Many other streams of Bharatâs history are and were totally ignored.
The study of Jat History falls into this in between category, where it has been ignored completely in our history texts books, and where it is found the references are denigratory .
A lot that is coming out from the re construction of the History of Jats, is uncomfortable to various groups- the Islamicists feel upset, because it shows that they did not have a walk over when they came into Bharat. The people fought them tooth and nail, and the Jats were, being more numerous and having a more close knit social structure, in the vanguard of the resistance.
A cursory review of the Jat sources shows that all communities participated. The war with Timur in 1398 CE was led by a Gujar general.
In fact it is, and should be of considerable interest, that while the Islamicists could subdue various regions, in their own backyard of the area 200 miles around Delhi, their hold was disputed daily.
<b>Akbar</b> did not make a treaty with the Jats of the Sarv Khap of Haryana, promising not to interfere with their affairs, because he suddenly acquired religious tolerance. He did so, so he could concentrate on consolidating his power in Agra region and the Sarv Khap power forced him to do so. The history of Bharat would have been different, had some of the orthodox hindus allied with the Jat Republican Sarv Khap , instead of allying with and supporting Akbar and the Muslims.
When new information about is brought out, with the intent of correcting distortions, it will upset the equilibrium, that has been existing, for often it will not be compatible with the existing versions.
This will upset some people, who hold on to their existing self serving positions and views.
The way forward, as it has always been, is to bring forward your material and arguments if you find anything that is posted here or on the Jathistory forum inaccurate.
Simply making pooh poohing the information, and making personal attacks, âspit a runâ is not going to make the evidence go away.
Those who wish to discuss it seriously, and wish to build upon the base, a foundation, so far created, should have no problem doing so under their real names.
If they do not wish to use their real name, it becomes even more important to be courteous, polite, and professional.
The orthodox caste driven âHinduâ gets upset, because the Jats refuse to acknowledge the caste system, its hierarchy of Priest, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, and that they refuse to be bracketed or pigeon holed into it.
Some holding on to a ârajputâ identity get upset, because a study of the material shows that their contribution to Indian Polity was less than glorious.
We should also keep in mind that alliances were often made with local self interests in mind, which looking back with hindsight should not have been made..
Should our History and its study be held hostage to these shackles?
Most of us will say no.
We can discuss it, uncomfortable material will come forward.
Let us see if we can learn from all this.
<b>
A note to Delete, Mowgli
</b>
The first step is to keep your posts, professional, and courteous, if you can.
Otherwise start a new thread to put your views forward.
Best regards
Ravi Chaudhary
As I see it, the purpose of site like India- Forum, is to be forum where all people can discuss and contribute, to discuss past events , learn from them, and look for a better solution to the problems of today and tomorrow, faced by our society and nation..
We should also, quietly, take a few moments to thank those who have organized this forum, and spend so much of their time on it.
When we discuss history, one of the purposes is to be open to information that develops, and also to be open to make corrections to the distortions that have occurred in previous years, centuries, and millennium.
When new information comes, it will disturb the existing equilibrium, and complacency- one excellent example is the Aryan Invasion theory, which has seen shown as bunkum, but existing positions are difficult to give up, especially for those who have staked their careers, reputations, livelihoods, and identity upon them.
This is exactly the same position of Indian history, where the bulk of it , as we taught it today, came to us by Colonial historians and then by Indians historians, who had their axes to grind- the JNU Marxist crowd - Irfan Habib is one such example. On the other we have those who simply wish to push a âHinduâ version of history, where Indian society evolved along the Hindu Religion's four fold caste system.
Many other streams of Bharatâs history are and were totally ignored.
The study of Jat History falls into this in between category, where it has been ignored completely in our history texts books, and where it is found the references are denigratory .
A lot that is coming out from the re construction of the History of Jats, is uncomfortable to various groups- the Islamicists feel upset, because it shows that they did not have a walk over when they came into Bharat. The people fought them tooth and nail, and the Jats were, being more numerous and having a more close knit social structure, in the vanguard of the resistance.
A cursory review of the Jat sources shows that all communities participated. The war with Timur in 1398 CE was led by a Gujar general.
In fact it is, and should be of considerable interest, that while the Islamicists could subdue various regions, in their own backyard of the area 200 miles around Delhi, their hold was disputed daily.
<b>Akbar</b> did not make a treaty with the Jats of the Sarv Khap of Haryana, promising not to interfere with their affairs, because he suddenly acquired religious tolerance. He did so, so he could concentrate on consolidating his power in Agra region and the Sarv Khap power forced him to do so. The history of Bharat would have been different, had some of the orthodox hindus allied with the Jat Republican Sarv Khap , instead of allying with and supporting Akbar and the Muslims.
When new information about is brought out, with the intent of correcting distortions, it will upset the equilibrium, that has been existing, for often it will not be compatible with the existing versions.
This will upset some people, who hold on to their existing self serving positions and views.
The way forward, as it has always been, is to bring forward your material and arguments if you find anything that is posted here or on the Jathistory forum inaccurate.
Simply making pooh poohing the information, and making personal attacks, âspit a runâ is not going to make the evidence go away.
Those who wish to discuss it seriously, and wish to build upon the base, a foundation, so far created, should have no problem doing so under their real names.
If they do not wish to use their real name, it becomes even more important to be courteous, polite, and professional.
The orthodox caste driven âHinduâ gets upset, because the Jats refuse to acknowledge the caste system, its hierarchy of Priest, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, and that they refuse to be bracketed or pigeon holed into it.
Some holding on to a ârajputâ identity get upset, because a study of the material shows that their contribution to Indian Polity was less than glorious.
We should also keep in mind that alliances were often made with local self interests in mind, which looking back with hindsight should not have been made..
Should our History and its study be held hostage to these shackles?
Most of us will say no.
We can discuss it, uncomfortable material will come forward.
Let us see if we can learn from all this.
<b>
A note to Delete, Mowgli
</b>
The first step is to keep your posts, professional, and courteous, if you can.
Otherwise start a new thread to put your views forward.
Best regards
Ravi Chaudhary