<!--QuoteBegin-mowgli+May 14 2006, 08:41 PM-->QUOTE(mowgli @ May 14 2006, 08:41 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->i'd recommend you start a thread putting forth your arguments to the effect why you think he is a 'jatt'..,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
please also tell us what a non-jatt is or what a a jatt isn't? *i really don't know and i'm really confused. i had some idea of what a jatt could mean or be before i read ravi's posts in these threads but i can't claim the same any longer - i'm not ridiculing anyone; only expressing my helplessness and confusion. i'd really aprreciate if you could encapsulate this in 5/6/.../15 sentences instead of asking me to read a whole discussion group?*
now don't tell me jat are those people who inhabited the IVC or BMAC. (o lord have mercy!!!!). and that they were specifically those who weren't orientals or of oriental origin or oriental mixing (though Dhu might agree with you here)!!!!
05-14-2006, 10:34 PM (This post was last modified: 05-14-2006, 10:34 PM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Chandergupt marya was a jatt,do you find some evidence suggesting otherwise.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you make the claim then you should be the one producing evidence that he was indeed Jat.
It's not a question of whether this or that person was a jat or was not a jat. rather it is a question about the over arching cultural gradient fom Punjab-sindh area upto and beyond the caspian. we have evidence from greek classical sources that sindoi/maeotae of the black sea were from india. same tribes with same names of sinti etc form a huge bulk of the historical roma gypsi migrations into romanian balkans. it is disingenuous of mowgli to claim that the known relationships from SSVC /BMAC times do not impact upon later migrations of punjabi/sindhi (aka jat) clans out of india. foreign origin of kushans (who were responsible for internationalization of buddhism much more than mauryas) is also a huge problem. essentially we get a view of buddhist spread akin to that of christianity ie "on the tramp" or "like a weed". the romans invaded palestine, caught the virus of christianity, which then went on to decimate the roman empire. the kushans invaded india, caught the virus of buddhism, which then went on to infect the great civilizations of china and tibet. we know definitively that this is not the dynamic of buddhism, which is synonymous with how knowledge (dharma) spreads, not middle eastern cults aka "religions"..
jat is same as punjabi as far as macro view of history is concerned.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->jat is same as punjabi as far as macro view of history is concerned.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hmm...why do you wish to appropriate punjabi-ness to an (perceived) ethnic group? is it to stick to the topic and stave off needless arguments regarding sub divisions or do you firmly believe 'jats,' some obscure ancient clan as some would have us believe, to be representative of the people who have predominantly occupied this area since time immemorial (notwihtstandng the fact that 'jat' may have been a 'cultural' phenomena like 'kushanas' or 'sakas' as you claim elsewhere?). ok so the indo-afghans have been largely endogamous. where am i missing you?
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+May 14 2006, 10:52 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ May 14 2006, 10:52 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You said Ravi think that your ancesstors were jatts which you are not sure about.Let us discuss this also<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no, now i am sure about them. my ancestors were mundas who had travelled afoot to kanauj. we claim harshavardhana as our own. but i now realize that he was jat, we are jats. no problem.
05-15-2006, 06:10 AM (This post was last modified: 05-15-2006, 07:36 AM by agnivayu.)
First of all, I wouldn't take what some Brit said in praise of my tribe to be some sort of badge of honor. The Brits today are a 4th rate power with bad teeth.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->or do you firmly believe 'jats,' some obscure ancient clan as some would have us believe, to be representative of the people who have predominantly occupied this area since time immemorial <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. As has shown been shown by Dr. K. Elst among others, indic inundation of central asia-ME has been grossly underestimated, we have systematic evidence for the formation of indic derived ethnicities in the mittani/kassite/kurds/sindoi/maetoi/hrvat/etc and i see no reason to assume that such was not the case in the case of the massagetae derived from autochthonous indic jats. Are we to assume that Gurcharan Das' or dahiwal' surname that we find sytematically even upto bengal is derived from a tribe of invading iranian "Dahae". of course not. we should fit in this evidence into the overarching <i>paradigm shift</i> brought about by Elst and Sethna to state that indic inundation of central asia led to the rise of the dahae. Massagetae are, btw, the central force in the so-called sarmatians who displaced the pontic aryan (indic) scythians <i>from the east</i>:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->K Elst..The ones to blame are - who else? - the Aryans. They, and âspecifically Indo-Aryansâ57, played a role in the Hurrian and Kassite invasions disrupting Mesopotamia (while the IE or non-IE identity of the <b>Guti </b>and Lullubi invaders remains unknown, though attempts are made to link the <b>Guti </b>with the Tokharians); and from Bactria, they by themselves disrupted the economy of the Indus-Saraswati civilization....
...This scenario has been attested in writing in the case of Mesopotamia. Sergent quotes other experts to the effect that âfrom ca. 2230 BC, (â¦) the <b>Guti </b>had cut off the roads, ruined the countryside, set the cities on fireâ59 etc., that the Assyrian trade system was disrupted by the Mitannic people, etc. But is there similar evidence for the Indus-Saraswati civilization? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, at the same time that the indic kassites and mittani were flowing into the mideast, the guti also invaded the same regions. OF course, the euros will make some arcane connection to "tocharians"; jats are simply too improbable as the source..
As I pointed out how jats are related to Indus valley civilization in my post under marathi thread. We find presence of indus valley imprints in all the places assosiated with jats like tarim basin, afghanistan and Indus area.
Again we find mention in persian records as they fought with sassanid rulers.
Muslim historians such as bukhari a contemporary of prophet mention that these Indian jats has already established in arabia much before the birth of muhammad.If we assume it fourth century AD than they might have been living for many centuries before in India than only he can say these Indian jats.These Parthian rulers who ruled for nearly four centuries from second century BC to scond century ad always called them azats meaning leaders of aryans and noble man.Simlarly we find relations between India and iran through Indus valley and elamite artifacts,now if we just avoid latinization of names these parthians names looks no different from Indian names.
Further as we see armenian literatures it has clearly stated that azat or jats (just note the iranian z sound is replaced by Indian J sound)
term is used from noble leaders of aryans and is a derivative of yajats used for leaders of aryans in vedic literature
It looks most probable that some of these aryan leaders as Indra who is termed as yazat or jazat in vedic literature moved west ward (supported by a westward expansion from pamirs in genetic findings)and devoled a new vedic religion over a period of time from parent Hindu fertility and sammanic religion of shiva and durga and later on merged again in to Hindu religion on their return.
This model explains each and every controversy regarding AIT.
However on there return the aryans had coined word kshtriya or khatti ,hitti for leaders and are represented by Indian khatris of north west and athrvans just merged in to indian brahman main stream as sarswat brahmans.
It is supported by the closest genetic similarity of khatri and brahmins.
Traditions of assosiation with vedas by all khatris as guru nanak and clans as vedis
Traditions of interchange of brahman and khatri cast as we see in case of sindh ruler chach.
Except these khatri all ancient kshtriyas as gujjar parthihars look fake kshtriyas of foregin origin.
This is a tragedy of India that we have always quoted the records of foregin writers be it in the times of Alexander or in the period of muslim invaders that we take all there lies as words of gods and never mention our own indian records maintained by native writers.
Further we can believe stories of bhatt who always produced warriors out of agani or always linked ancessetery to Rama or king Vikarmaditya.
Harshwardan has been recorded as jat king by sarv khap panchyat republic records and not reported non jat or from any other cast by any other record .
Again these Sarv khap republic records are not jat records but records of all the 36 casts united under one democratic republic.
There genealogy records of tomar king has been fond true when compared with other historical documents, as compared to false history still taught in Indian history books where they say that four or five chohan kings ruled delhi four a period as short as 4-5 years each and then again mention that prithviraj got his kingdom from maternal grandfather anangpal tomar.
Where respected Farishta was still under confusion wether ghori was killed by ghakkar or khokkar these records gave the name of jat senapati aniruddh khokkar who severed ghori head and compare this to Mat chuk chohan.... story fed to India TV audience.What a shame.
They have reported in detail various events and the speeches of different leaders and greatly praised the role of republic warriors wether he was gujjar jat or from any other cast as gujjar general of this republic force who fough Temur invasion was praised greatly for the extreme bravery which he displayed in battle field.
They had no selfish interest so their records are more geniune than anyother court historian records.
Jat history research is a relatively new area and it will crumble many age old false propogandas carried by vested interests such as leftist historians.
As far as jat being Punjabi or Sindhi if the term relate to area than it may be possible since they have been living here and again if we see the sinti of greek records they were excellent in developing irrigation by canals and well may have been reffered for jats or other related tribes of this area.
But Meotae term has always facinated me. Who can they be as we find mev community in haryana(earlier hindu and now muslims)and hindu mev of orissa as well mehatas of sindh and western punjab.
Jat has always been used in ethnic sence and never as a cultural or in some title form as choudhary rajput or maratha.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You need to open you mind to INDIAN history, not just the history of Jats, if you want to be taken seriously on the INDIA forum<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well adviced Guleria. I remember debating with this 60 Years old castiest kid from Toronto on his famous Jat history forum. Not to say finally i was banned due to the inconvinience i was causing by making holes in their hot air balloon of Jat history born out of Jat fairy tales & scewed-up Khap records.
No matter what you tell this guy, for him his Jat identity comes above every thing including Indian identity.
Mr. Ravi, You gave me an advice while i was on your forum. According to you i had no place on Jat history forum and i should move to Yahoo group "Indian Civilization".
May i ask what the hell are you doing on India forum? Being a Jat first & Indian later (certainly you are not a Hindu) you have no place here.
Oh YES, IT IS NOT YOUR JAT HISTORY FORUM WHERE YOU CAN BLOCK ALL THE MESSAGES WHICH DOESN"T SUITE YOUR AGENDA. So BE PREAPARED FOR FACTS.
One just need to visit this castiest hell hole called "Jat History forum" on Yahoo groups and have glimpse of their castiest bigoted mindset. Here they make fun of Rajputs, Brahmins in particular & Hindus & Hinduism in general.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->i believe raviji puts forth cogent arguments and his theory/history of the jats is quite inclusive. but i think he has, other than for harshavardhana, forgotten to include some prominent (and obviously jat) figures of our history in his 'ethnically jat' subset:
...and a few others.<b> i trust this shouldn't be difficult to accomplish in the near future with deeper forays into linguistic archaeology as dahiya, ex-IAS, RCPS, panipat, BDMNOP, EFG, QLMNOP, PhDP (whose name raviji wisely forwarded as that of a historian of repute to counter opinions of dilettantes like some airavat singh upthread), meticulously engages in to unravel the origins of the jat clans.</b> dahiya argues that the caspian sea was once called the sea of gillian. <b>thus gills were a jat clan hailing from that area. thus irish/brit gillens were jats. similarly, thomas mann, like gurdas mann, was also jat - both hailing from the same bhillage near caspian sea</b>
