<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Aug 25 2006, 08:43 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Aug 25 2006, 08:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ravi,
  Here is an excerpt from Page 289 of Chapter 14 of Baburnama, translated by Annette S. Beveridge:
My March Against Rana Sangha
"(11 February/9 Jumada Awal ) We left Agra and dismounted in the countryside where we remained for a few days to assemble our army. News reached us that due to <b>Rajput</b> Rana Sangha's speedy advance with all his troops our scouts were unable ..........."
........................
  Lastly as is evident that Jats, Gujjars and Rajputs are different people as even a "foreigner" in 16th century could observe that. So your claims that Maharana Pratap's family was a Jat is frivolous and you should purge it from your thoughts and if possible educate other brethern of yours too.
 I will be happy to answer more questions from you.
The copy of Babur-nama, translated by Annette Susannah Beveridge ( 1921), I have, is the copy of the third edition, ISBN 81-215-00505-2, published 1990 by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd. 54 Rani Jhansi road, New Delhi 110055.
It is in two volumes.
Volume âII, Total pages 880
Is the period you are referring to::
On Page 547, Vol II:
It reads:
â (m Babur leaves Agra against Rana Sanga)
( Feb 11th) On Monday the 9th day of the first Jamuda, we got out of the suburbs of Agra, on our journey( safar) for the Holy War, and dismounted in open Country, where we remained three or four days to collect our army and be its rallying point.
As little confidence was placed in the Hindustani people, the Hindustan amirs were inscribed for expeditions to this or to that side:- Alam Khan( Tahangari) was sent hastily to Gualiar to reinforce Rahim Dad; Makan, Quasim Beg, Sanbali( Sambhali), Hamid with his elder and younger brethren and Muhammad Zaitun were inscribed to go swiftly to Sanbal.
(n. Defeat of the advance force).
Into this same came the news that owing to Rana Sangaâs swift with all his army our scouts were neither able to get into the fort( Biana) themselves nor to send any news into itâ.
Here is what Leydenâs translation for the same event. Leydenâstranslation was done circa 1813, and Beveridge was done in 1921, She had access to Leydenâs work for she quotes that work.
Leyden translation:
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/pf?fi...1052&ct=58
âOn Monday, the 9th of the first JumÄda, I began my march to the holy war against the heathen. Having passed the suburbs, I encamped on the plain, where I halted three or four days, to collect the army and communicate the necessary instructions. As I did not place great reliance on the men of HindustÄn, I employed their AmÄ«rs in making desultory excursions in different directions. Älim Khan was directed to proceed with a light force to GwÄliÄr, to carry assistance to RahÄ«mdÄd, while I appointed Makan, KÄsim Sambali, HamÄ«d with his brothers, and Muhammed ZeitÅ«n, to proceed with a light-armed party towards Sambal.
Defeat of
the detach-
ment.
At this station we received information that RÄna Sanka had pushed on with all his army nearly as far as BiÄna. The party that had been sent out in advance were not able to reach the fort, nor even to communicate with it.â
Now both Leydenâs version( 1823) and Beveridgeâs version, (done 100 years later, in 1921,) in the copy of Munshiram Manoharlal 3rd edition 1990 do not describe Sanga as a Rajput .
[So what edition of Beveridgeâs work are you following . What are full details of the version you are reading, publisher, editor, date of publishing, ISBN?.]
The Munshiram 3rd edition 1990 ( contains over 700 pages, for Vol 2 alone. Your version has the expedition in page 289, but The Munshiram edition has it on page 547 of Volume 2.
Prima facie that would indicate that you are using an abridged version, and the editor of that abridged version has inserted the term ârajputâ where none existed before. If that was not the case Leyden would have mentioned it.( Of course you are expected to check the Munshiram edition which in India is the standard edition, and should be in your local library. If not that, then the original English edition should be there.)
The only references to the term rajput, are in the footnotes made by the translator Beveridge, where Tod etc are used as sources. The original translations are silent on this issue.
There are three Indices( index) in the Munshiram edition
Index 1- Personal
Index 2- General
Index 3- Geographical
In none of them is the term rajput used.
Unless you are suggesting that ,Leyden ( in the year 1813), the Packhum organization in 2004(?), and Munshiram Manohar Publishers in 1990, have all conspired to delete the description of Rana Sanga as a rajput.
We should get technically accurate first.
Best regards
Ravi Chaudhary
Secondly the defence of India borders by jat tribes from muslim aggression ,killing of ghori by khokhar jats ,attack on mahmud Gajnavi army by jats while returning after somnath raid Fight of jat armies with tyrrant Temur whom he reffer his only enemy,fight of Jatwan with kutubuddin army,resistance of hindu sahis and role of jat kingdom of Ranjit Singh(again jat) and Surajmal etc. has almost been neglected.I am giving only contribution of the jats among many groups whose contribution have not been included,leaving such matter may downplay their role in resisting foreign invaders.
When such post find a respected site like this people take every word a hard fact,which may not be the case.
[right][snapback]56233[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well since this thread has already been ruined here's some more info:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Therefore here we see a process of Islamic invaders been seen as liberators, and a process of appreciation of the Muslims. Therefore it wouldnât surprise one to find out that the Jat population on the whole joined forces with the Muslim invaders. To many scholars, it was the Jats joining the Muslims that was decisive in ensuring victory. The Jats gave much needed information regarding the territory and possible ways of achieving a Muslim victory.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would explain why som many Jats converted to Islam and why the invaders easily captured lands upto Delhi...the only resistance came from the Rajputs and Brahmans.
(mods please take this and other "Jat" posts to the Jat thread and let the original discussion continue Thanks)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rajasthan was earlier called Rajputana (state of Rajputs) after the ruling class of Rajputs. Rajput clans rose to prominence in the 6th century, establishing kingdoms in Rajasthan and across northern India. The Rajputs resisted Muslim incursions into India, although a number of Rajput states became tributaries to the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire during those empires' peak of expansion. As these empires weakened, the Rajputs reasserted their independence. With the decline of the Mughal Empire in the 18th century, Rajputana become more and more independent.The Rajput kings concluded treaties with the British in the early 19th century, accepting British sovereignty. Ajmer became a province of British India, while the autonomous Rajput states and a few non-Rajput states (Tonk, Bharatpur, and Dholpur) were organized into the Rajputana Agency. Bharatpur and Dholpur were Jat states. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> I think, v need to lighten a bit:
Natwar Singh from Bharatpur and you can see the interjection of Jat MahaSabha right in the heart of Rajasthan in his bid to fight Delhi but avoiding Italy.
Gulleria ji this time we will clear all your concepts and doubts about antiquity of jats and rajputs.
I just repeat what ever is said in link provided by you .
JATS ARE THE MOST ANCIENT RACE OF SINDH.
As we all know that AIT is just a myth,than it can be easily concluded that they are among the authors of Indus valley Civilization.
And we see a series of jat kings of morya kushan parthian sahi rulers balahara the greatest king of world from India of his times Harshwardhana anangpal tomar and others.
Wether they were jats or not we can have seprate discusion but as per muslim chronicles we can safely conclude that they were here many centuries before birth of prophet.right.
Now rajputs are called as gujjar parthihars or parthiars the parthva of indian texts who called them jats or ajats .
Now safely it can be concluded that rajputs took titles from gujjar and parthiar jats right or wrong?
Also as it is confirmed beyond doubt that jats are one of most ancient race how can you explain the existence of Gullaria clan of jats.
Is it not possible that when so many groups adopted rajput titles from bhars =chandels gujjars =bad gujars huns ,ahirs, meenas,meds, khatris=ghakkars,brahmans of HP,nepali ,bhihari and others Gullarias jats might have adopted rajput title.
Is it not a real possiblity when northwest was havily populated by jats so much so that arabs just called every one coming from India a Zott 'that jat ruling clans too might have adopted this title , When every other group was joining rajput group.The live rajputisation of brahman tribes of HP was even witnessed and reported by HA Rose and Ibbetson.
Tell me honestly that is it not a real possibility.If not why?
ie Gullaria rajputs of today may be Gullaria JATS of yesterday.
Again why rajputs were not there in chronicles earlier than tenth century.
I feel shying away from your true ancesstory and inventing some artficial past is some thing one should not be proud of.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 12:46 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 12:46 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->ie Gullaria rajputs of today may be Gullaria JATS of yesterday.
Again why rajputs were not there in chronicles earlier than tenth century.
I feel shying away from your true ancesstory and inventing some artficial past is some thing one should not be proud of.
[right][snapback]56265[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The word Rajput has evolved from Rajaputra, which was there not only before 10th Century, but in fact going right back to the Vedic texts....a long time before the word Jat comes into the picture.
And secondly I am not from Rajasthan but Himachal Pradesh...the Guleria Rajputs are a branch (the elder one) of the famous Katoch Rajput rulers of Kangra. Our history goes back again to the Vedic age while our recorded history (coins, inscriptions, temples) goes back to the 1st Century AD.
Curiously while calling Harshvardhan or Chandragupta a Jat you never provide similar RECORDED evidence like coins, inscriptions, etc. This is why you guys are not taken seriously...especially not by educated Jats.
The word Rajput has evolved from Rajaputra, which was there not only before 10th Century, but in fact going right back to the Vedic texts....a long time before the word Jat comes into the picture.
Really...?...?
Than show me just one single evidence that it was not the title as maharajadhraj sheansah or khastrpa but cast of any ruler just one single evidence.
Since you know the history of katoch gullaria rajputs or rajputras from first AD than you must have seen the use of rajputra for your ancesstor kindly show me one single reference where they were called so, it is so easy for you.
Again what do you say of IBBETSON and Rose who witnessed these live rajputisation process where different cast adopted rajput titles.Any genuine answer?
Since as per your claim the rajputra was used for vedic rajput than show me just use of this word in vedic texts.
As vedic texts are not aware of rajput word or cast than what could have been the identity of todays rajputs if youy claim them from vedic period.Have you any evidence that rajputra was used for a group of people like Temur noted these demon like Jats or the companion of prophet used these people looked like Hind jats in physique ETC.. ETC..
Now don't claim that some other word like rajanya might have been used for this cast in vedic times.When we are discussing we have to show some factual evidences not guesses and imagination that it might have been like this like that.Again rajanya a plural of rajan used for king is a very beautiful word .If you further stretch imagination that it was used for rajput cast than why such a beautiful name was dropped for a word like rajput lateron ,why any reason...?
If you just see the groups parthians phalavs called them jats arabian called them jats persian called them jats albrunie called them jats herodotus called them jats written jatae etc..a real history not like some built up identity which changes ever season of history with no evidence to relate to present cast.
Gullaria ji pls be honest in just one simple answer.
Do you believe that Huna rajput of today were called Huna rajanya in vedic period.
Let us be honest in our ancesstory as denying that is equal to disrespecting our ancesstors.
PS Gullaria ji what you belive that gullarias would never have moved from himachal ,when rajputs from rajasthan can go to Nepal why can't they go to himachal .You know the immigration laws were very liberal those days
The assertion that Jat is the MOST ancient race is false.
The assertion that all rajputs are descendants of Jats is also a lie.
Rajput is literally "Raja Putra" i.e son of the king.
I will ask you a few questions:
a) Why is that rajputs and Jats are socially so different? If they were same people
they should be socially same. Rajput women do not go and work in the fields
while Jat women do. (Do not give me one off examples. We are taking about
what generally happens in Jat and rajput villages).
b) Why is that rajputs and Jats do not intermarry?
c) Why is it that the ancient Hara and Khichi clan of chauhan rajputs absent in Jats?
(Hooda is not acceptable as Hara because if rajputs can retain Hara/Khichi so
should have Jats if they were same). Hara rajputs ruled Boondi and Kotah.
Prithviraj Chauhan belonged to the Khichi Shakha of Chauhans. http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/misc/chauhan.html
The mistake that you guys are making just as gujjars are making today is that people
with same last names are considered the same. I will give you an example: Rajputs
have Deora Chauhans. Gujjars have Devda Gujjars. The progenitor of each Deora /
Devda clan was a different person who lived in a different geographical location.
Yet today Devda Gujjar might say we are same as Deora Chauhan which of course
is false as is historically recorded.
Jats were pastoralists whose help was taken by rajput kings to make there
kingdoms richer by giving them land. Please read annals of Bikaner and find out
why is the word "ner" used in Bikaner. (Hint: it is after a Jat on whose lands Rathore
Bika established his kingdom. The Jat Khap of that area gave there lands to Bika
without a fight and Bika gave them lots of honours like using a part of jat clans name
to name his kingdom.) Jats were usually not required by rajput kings to send an
army. This function was carried out solely by the land owners that the king himself
gave lands to.
-Digvijay
In this section below (written by a good friend) origin of different people with same
last name is discussed. Also note that Gujjars and jats refer to there surnames as
there gotras but rajputs do not.
Rajputs and Jats have some similar shakha/gotras. In fact gurjars and rajputs also have some similar shakhas/gotras. They way a shakha/gotra started was usually from the name of person. For example progeny of Kumpa (a rathore) were referred to as Kumpawat. Note Kumpawat is a join of two words: Kumpa (name of the person) + Vats (a hindi word which means children) so kumpawat is literally children of kumpa. Some Gotra's do not use the word Vats they just use the name of the progenitor as in the case of Khokhra/Hara/Deora etc. Others use the combined style as in Ranawat (Maharana Pratap's descendants)/ Kumpawat/ Sangawat etc.
Similarly in western world you will find lot of names like Johnson. These follow similar logic i.e sons of John or Ingriddoitr i.e daughter of Ingrid.
There are multiple possibilities how jats and gurjars have similar surnames as rajputs.
a) If you look at today's rajput villages in India, besides rajputs there are other people in the village like Teli (people who extract oil), julaha (weavers), gadariya (cow herds) and some more. Not all but some of them actually put the surname of the rajput clan of that village at the end of there name. Since Jats and rajputs lived in the same villages in rajasthan (In fact there living quarters were not close to each other. Jats mostly lived in houses close to the fields they tilled) it is possible some Jats started using the same surname as the rajputs of that village.
b) Since Jats and rajputs were in the same region they would have seen how rajput gotra's start i.e from a person so it is entirely possible they followed a similar style. Also, even today, people tend to name there children after "known persons" of history. If we take an example: Say Rao Khokhra was an important rathore ruler in medieval rajasthan. It is probable that some jats in villages where Khokra ruled could have named there children Khokra and if this child's progeny thrived they all could have used the patrynomic khokra."
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Aug 27 2006, 11:13 AM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Aug 27 2006, 11:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nandi,Ravi and other fellow Jats,
 The assertion that Jat is the MOST ancient race is false.Â
 The assertion that all rajputs are descendants of Jats is also a lie.
 Rajput is literally "Raja Putra" i.e son of the king.
 I will ask you a few questions:
 a) Why is that rajputs and Jats are socially so different? If they were same people
   they should be socially same. Rajput women do not go and work in the fields
   while Jat women do. (Do not give me one off examples. We are taking about
   what generally happens in Jat and rajput villages).
 b) Why is that rajputs and Jats do not intermarry?
 c) Why is it that the ancient Hara and Khichi clan of chauhan rajputs absent in Jats? Â
  Â
Â
    Jats were pastoralists whose help was taken by rajput kings to make there
  kingdoms richer by giving them land.
  Â
  The Jat Khap of that area gave there lands to Bika
  without a fight and Bika gave them lots of honours like using a part of jat clans name
  to name his kingdom.
In this section below (written by a good friend) origin of different people with same
last name is discussed. Also note that Gujjars and jats refer to there surnames as
there gotras but rajputs do not.
Khokra are a shakha of rathore rajputs who descended from Rao Khokhra, an ancestor of present day Jodhpur/Bikaner royal houses.
There are multiple possibilities how jats and gurjars have similar surnames as rajputs.
a) [right][snapback]56277[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is one example of running away from facts.
You didn't reply a single point raised by me.Why rajputra not used for some group why rajanya not used afterwards where is word rajput in ancient texyts where is huna rajanya etc.. etc.. For how long you can run away from facts that you have to face one day or other.
Now let me answer you.
You give me a single proof that rajputs are ancient to jats whose ancient existence is proved from mahabarat and arabic, persian and greek records references.I gave proofs for my statement but you could not find a single evidence...even a single I repeat to substantiate your existence .Than what moral authority you have to assert that jats are not ancient to rajputs.I again give you a chance to prove if you can rajput word even existed or rajputra was used for some group and not as title.
And than started again imagination that it could have happened like this like that now don't say that we were called by some rajanya or or some khastriya as you even can't explain why there is no kashtriya group or rajanya group today why they started calling rajput.
Again the kashtriya group(khatris) don't say we are rajputs why?
You atleast should provide some supporting matter not mere suppostion.
And your literature says that you were born out of Fire lit in mount abu in tenth century than who were those vedic rajanyas and rajaputras before fire ?
A discussion can lead to a fruitful result when we keep our mind open to any reasoning in stead of false ego.
Now I never claimed that all rajputs came out of jats and gujjars or huns.I accepted that These chandels were Bhars chohans were gujjars kushwaha were brahmans ,Guhilots called themselves Vipr or brahmans in their genealogies.Soda decendants of Dahir were mohyal brahmans ,hun rajputs were huns invaders ,mair rajputs of saurastra claim med ancesstery sumara records relate them to churra tribe as reported in Sindh story byKR Malkani ,Himachali and nepali were a seprate tribe as is well known.
Now as these facts are well known and well known is this habit of keeping many concubines may be of any cast by rulers than I request you to be honest in your reply .
What cast these sons of kings from different cast concubines would have given to themselves.I again ask Honesty and truth in your reply.
So jats are now different and rajputs are different and they don't marry in to each other.Rajpus had power jats had Pride.
Yes they are different socially also and jat women work in fields along with their men also as farming is never considered as bad but respectable thing in jats .There can be one jat king but if you see jat republics didn't have this exploitative jamindari system and it was a great tradition.
Yes please keep one stand in atleast one post as you say jats took lands from rajputs and than again say bika got lands from jats.
Yes we know how Bika used the rivalvry of Godara and Johiya jats by pampering the ego of godara and then exploiting both,This is why we must learn lession from history.
This time I expect my original answers and honesty regarding ancientness as of Rajputs
Nandibum,
In inscriptions you do not write your caste. Nobody writes
Kshatriya Maharaja ....... or Rajput Maharaja .........Similarly on coins you do not state the obvious. The ancient kings of India were the forefathers of rajputs. This is
the reason why we see a social difference in customs between rajputs and Jats. Rajputs, being connected to the kings, do not have womenfolk working in the fields on the other hand people
who have been pastoralists throughout, carryon there ancient tradition of making
there women work in the fields for example Jats and Gujjars and Ahirs and
(fill in any other branch of Kshatriyas here). I am not saying working in the fields by women is a bad thing. Just pointing out a big and fundamental difference between these two castes.
And note the Jats of Bikaner area gave there lands up because of the ferocious reputation of Kandhal (Bika's uncle) and Bika and his rathore rajputs. Nobody gives up there land without a fight unless they are scared. You know it well. Even in today's villages try taking a single "Bisa" of land belonging to someone else and see if they yield it without a fight.
-Digvijay
But just see how I gave so many references from different literary sources for existence of JATS.
Digvijay I agree that cast may not be written but atleast existence of this word should have been there if it was a distinct group.
Fact as known to all rationaly thinking persons is that it was used as a title by some ruling dynasties and their decendants and they were drawn from all native and foreign groups as chandels from Bhars and huns from foreign invading groups which intermarried to form a distinct group.But even today due to diverse bakground you will find one rajput group not marrying in to other due to their different background.
You find nothing of this sort in jats.
Women have a much higher status in jat society and they work shoulder to shoulder with their man but that is a seprate issue.
We all are humanbeings, had our moments of pride and moments of shame but we should never show disrespect to our ancesstors by relating ourself to some false ancesstory.
I need not remind you that Godara jats of bikaner had animoisty with the johiya jats of neghouring areas and they had many bloody fights .Bika just promised to aid the godars in their fight in lieu of some commitment on land revenue.A story of two cats and a monkey.And godaras paid price for that.
Quote Digvijay...
The ancient kings of India were the forefathers of rajputs. This is
the reason why we see a social difference in customs between rajputs and Jats
Digvijay Have you ever heard of GREAT KING BALHARA OF HIND considered as the greatest of Indian king by arabs with borders from China to Sindh and one among the four great kings of world of his times.His decendants are still called as jats not rajputs.I am certain many of you might not have heard as jat history is usally ignored in current texts.But slowly more and more peole are knowing about Jat History with postive contribution from sites as India Discussion Forum.
The Indians and Chinese agree that there are four great or principal kings in the world, all of them allowing that the king of the Arabs is the first and most powerful of kings, the most wealthy, and the most excellent every way, because he is the prince and head of a great religion, and because no other surpasses him. The Emperor of China reckons himself next after the king of the Arabs, after him the king of the Greeks, and lastly the Balhara,[10] or king of the Moharmi al Adon, or people who have their ears bored. The Balhara is the most illustrious sovereign in all the Indies, and though all the other kings in India are masters and independent each in their own dominions, they thus so far acknowledge his preeminence, that when he sends ambassadors to the other princes, they are received with extraordinary honours. This king makes magnificent presents after the manner of the Arabs, and has vast numbers of horses and elephants, and great treasures in money. His silver coin is what we........
Ex primeminister of fiji Choudhary MS Balhara is one of his decendants.
<!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo--> Reference to Jats in books correct: Bipan
[ 27 Aug, 2006 1053hrs ISTPTI ]
RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates
NEW DELHI: Notwithstanding objections by various activists who took the matter to the Supreme Court, noted historian Bipan Chandra on Sunday said references made to the Jat community in NCERT books written by him are "correct and based on historical facts" ratified by an expert committee.
"The reference is based on facts which are part of history. And many other eminent historians have endorsed these facts," Chandra told.
Taking strong exception to some portions dealing with Jats, the Siksha Bachao Andolan Samiti and Delhi Pradesh Citizens Council moved the Supreme Court seeking deletion of certain portions from the NCERT textbooks of Antra Part I for class XI and Modern India for class XII for allegedly offending the sentiments of the community.
One of the controversial passages said "for some periods under the leadership of Jat zamindars, the peasantry which rose in rebellion against the social condition took to plunder in the period when law and order was breaking down all over northern India."
"I had written the book in 1969. The book was scrutinised word by word by an expert committee appointed by the government in 1967. The committee did not find anything objectionable in the book," said Chandra, also Chairman of the National Book Trust.
The expert committee comprised Prof S Gopal, Prof Nurul Hasan, Prof R S Sharma and Prof Romila Thapar.
"These people were eminent scholars of history. Neither I nor any of the committee members can be accused of casteism or communalism. All of us have fought against
"The question of hurting any caste or community does not arise as far as I and these experts are concerned," he said.
Describing the criticism of his books as "baseless", Chandra said, "A historian cannot go on praising everything of the past. He has to bring out the weaknesses of the past so that we may avoid them now."
Chandra said he has also appreciated Surajmal Jat, the founder of Bharatpur state, in the book.
"Jat power reached its highest glory under Surajmal Jat, an extremely able administrator and soldier and a very wise statesman," he said citing passages from his book.
"Though he (Surajmal) wore the dress of a farmer and could speak only Braj dilect, he was the Plato of the Jat tribe. In prudence and skill, he had no equal among the grandees of Hindustan," he added.
The book says that "though originally a peasant uprising, the Jat revolt under the zamindars soon became predatory."
But Chandra said all these references were based on historical facts which cannot be disputed by anybody.
Eminent historians like Prof Jadunath Sarkar and Sardesai have written the same thing in their books, he said.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So you could not find an answer , you know why?
Because you don't have any answer.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nandibum,
Answer was given perhaps you could not comprehend it(though u seemed to
acknowledge that you followed it)?
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
But just see how I gave so many references from different literary sources for existence of JATS.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look you are going down the wrong path. You CANNOT prove that Jats are more ancient
then rajputs because for that you will have to prove that jats existed in India before
the kings did, which ofcourse you cannot.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Digvijay I agree that cast may not be written but atleast existence of this word should have been there if it was a distinct group.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is the point. Have you heard "Haath Kangan Ko Arsi Kya?.... ".
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Fact as known to all rationaly thinking persons is that it was used as a title by some ruling dynasties and their decendants and they were drawn from all native and foreign groups as chandels from Bhars and huns from foreign invading groups which intermarried to form a distinct group.But even today due to diverse bakground you will find one rajput group not marrying in to other due to their different background.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely wrong. No blood from central/western asian people flows in the veins
of rajputs. They are purely indegenous people with no genetic inflow from outside of
India. Please read the thread on Aryan Invasions in this forum and I have posted a 2006 paper by Sahoo et.al which debunks these myths about assimilation of foreigners into the
Indian diaspora of past.
Let me ask you do you even know for how long these Huns managed to grab a piece
of small land in India? Hint: An extremely short amount of time!
Lastly clueless historians have propounded idiotic theories like scythic/Hunnic/West/Central Asian origin for rajputs. This is all non-sense.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->You find nothing of this sort in jats.
Women have a much higher status in jat society and they work shoulder to shoulder with their man but that is a seprate issue.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. This is not a separate issue. This is a fundamental issue of how women are treated
and what is there position in a particular caste group. There is a fundamental difference
between rajputs and rest because of the way these castes originated and that is refelected in whether women work or not in the fields.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 07:36 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We all are humanbeings, had our moments of pride and moments of shame but we should never show disrespect to our ancesstors by relating ourself to some false ancesstory.
[right][snapback]56284[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure. That is what you need to introspect on. Jats have no connection with rajputs.
You and rest should spend more time in figuring out and bringing out the various
wars Jats fought against the invaders in our history. Start with the most recent
and travel back in the past.
You are un-necessarily wasting enrgy to prove a connection which is not there.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 08:04 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 08:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I need not remind you that Godara jats of bikaner had animoisty with the johiya jats of neghouring areas and they had many bloody fights .Bika just promised to aid the godars in their fight in lieu of some commitment on land revenue.A story of two cats and a monkey.And godaras paid price for that.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong again. Remember Bika had 300 horsemen only! He is entering a territory which
is inhabited by thousands of Jats. Think about it: Why should the Jats listen to this
upstart?
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 08:04 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 08:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quote Digvijay...
The ancient kings of India were the forefathers of rajputs. This is
the reason why we see a social difference in customs between rajputs and Jats
Digvijay Have you ever heard of GREAT KING BALHARA OF HIND considered as the greatest of Indian king by arabs with borders from China to Sindh and one among the four great kings of world of his times.His decendants are still called as jats not rajputs.I am certain many of you might not have heard as jat history is usally ignored in current texts.But slowly more and more peole are knowing about Jat History with postive contribution from sites as India Discussion Forum.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what I read about Balhara from the website you pointed too:
" It is probable that this Balhara, or king of the people with bored ears, which plainly means the Indians, was the Zamorin or Emperor of Calicut; who, according to the reports of the most ancient Portuguese writers concerning India, was acknowledged as a kind of emperor in the Indies, six hundred years before they discovered the route to India by the Cape of Good Hope.--Harris.
"
And in another place this website says Balhara was not a proper noun but an apellative
term only.
In 851 A.D (the time mentioned of the Balhara king on the website pointed by you)
there were three major kings in northern India:
In Mewar/Chittor it was Khuman II who repelled multiple attacks by Arab invaders. In all 24 attacks were repelled and Mewar was called the guardian of Hinduism. His reign from 828 A.D - 853 A.D is considered one of the golden ages of Rajputs. Khuman Raso (just like Prithviraj Raso) was written about the reign of this king.
Mihir Bhoja, the Pratihaar rajput King, ruled from 835-886 A.D over the region of Gujarat and during this time frame the Chandela rajputs founded BundelKhand/Khajurao.
What he says is true.Jats who rose in rebellion against muslim tyranny and tried to plunder the tyrrant army might have plundered others also.
This controversy is just political.But the issues are deeper than that .
The denial of the existence of a race that was one of the most ancient and single largest in nw and had one of the most fertile lands of world.
When he speaks about jats under surjmal than why don't he write about Ranjit Singh about jat state of Jind Naba Patial or muslim jat states Why didn't they mention about Balhara kings jats controling mansura and kimran ,possiblity of their being the authors of Indus valley Civilization etc if not to mention harsha tomars and moryas .Segregation of jat rulers were just to undermine their past .
One of the controversial passages said "for some periods under the leadership of Jat zamindars, the peasantry which rose in rebellion against the social condition took to plunder in the period when law and order was breaking down all over northern India."
[right][snapback]56291[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Captain Kumar,
These JNU historians are a disgrace to the nation. Jats revolted and did an awesome
thing when Aurangzeb was in the south. They went and uprooted Akbar's Mazaar and threw away his bones. This shook the entire muslim land to its core!
But our "secular historians" just love calling these things "plunder" but any hindu
temple that was broken or an idol destoryed had to be done politically by the muslims.
I wonder how can such a double standard be tolerated.
Rajputana is the collective name by which Rajput dynasties and statelets are known.
The Rajputs were military lords, important in Northern India from the 8th to the 12th centuries more for their disunited hegemony than for any specific state they created, although they did found many states, especially in Rajasthan. They claimed proudly to belong to the warrior kshatriya caste. Rajasthani is related to the other Indo-European languages of India. Rajputana is the collective name by which Rajput dynasties and statelets are known. Often it is used interchangeably with Rajasthan.
The Guptas were assailed by the Ephthalites, known to the Indians as Huna (ca450). The Ephthalites were contained but under a king called Toramana they formed a state (ca500) antagonistic to the Guptas, who eventually drove Toramana's son, Mihirakula, to Kashmir, where he gained infamy for his cruelties. The Huna were the antecessors of the Rajputs.
The downfall of the Gupta empire gave way to different dynasties in Gujarat, Bengal, Nepal, Kamarupa (modern Assam), and Orissa. In 606, Harsha formed a kingdom centered in Kanauj (on the Ganges River west of Delhi). Harsha tried but could not subdue the successor states of the Huna.
After Harsha's death in 647, his empire came apart. The Rajputs gradually and piecemeal extended their rule over northern India as far as Bengal. Early Rajasthani Hindu architecture can be seen in the Surya temple at Osian (ca800) and in the Nakti Mati temple at Bhavanipura (9th century).
The Gurjara Pratihara dynasty formed the strongest of the Rajput states, originally based in Gujarat but later extensive to Kanauj. Other Rajput dynasties and principalities (9th-11th centuries) were the Tomara (founders of Dhillikai, later Delhi), the Guhillas of Mewar, the Paramaras of Malwa, the Cahamanas of eastern Rajasthan, the Gahadavalas of Varanasi, the Kalachuris of Tripuri, the Chandellas of Bihar, Gwalior, and Jaunpur.
The Chandellas (11th century), whose imposing temples in Khajuraho (Madhya Pradesh), with their incredibly erotic sculptures (probably Tantric, on which see Bengal), reveal a more emollient side to the Rajputs. Khajuraho is a World Heritage Site.
During the 7th and 8th centuries, the Chalukyas were hegemonic in Central India. Together with the Kashmiri ruler Lalitaditya, they contained the Arabs who in 724 had gained a firm foothold in Sind (southern Pakistan). The Chalukyas were displaced in the central Deccan by the Rashtrakutas of Northern India. The Rashtrakutas warred indecisively with the Rajputs. In the early 10th century, the Rashtrakutas sacked Kanauj and broke the power of the Gurjara Pratihara.
During the 11th century the Rajput statelets were raided by Cholas from Southern India and by the Afghans Ghaznavids. During the 12th century, the Ghaznavids were dispossessed by the Ghurids, who defeated an allied Rajput army led by Prithviraj at Tarain in 1192. Ghurid generals founded the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th century.
After the crucial weakening of the Delhi Sultanate by Timur's devastating raid (1390), the Rajputs had a resurgence in Mewar, which fell to Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty. Rajputs served the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire as soldiers and administrators and either won for themselves or were awarded princely realms which they held on to literally suicidal extremes. In a gory war ceremony known as jauhar or ghaujar, Rajput warriors went out to face certain death in battle, when the odds were insuperable, while their women flung themselves and their children into flames. This did not always happen.
After the Muslim invasions, Rajputs states were all in the modern state of Rajasthan. Their rulers usually adopted the title of maharaja and their wives were known as maharanis. In the 13th century, there existed Chittor or Chittogarh. In 1459, Rao Jodha founded Jodhpur, formerly known as Marwar with its capital at Mandore. One of his descendants, Rao Bikaji, founded Bikaner in 1488. Babur granted the Rajputs the territory of Amber. The grandest Jain temple was built in 1439 with white marble to huge dimensions in a remote, arid valley between Jodhpur and Amber.
In 1568, Chittogarh, which had resisted many sieges and fallen more than once, was definitely captured by the Mughal emperor Akbar (1556-1605). However, the Maharana Udai Singh escaped the slaughter and founded an autonomous state in Udaipur. In 1570, Akbar granted Jaisalmer to a Rajput clan.
The Mughal Jahangir (1605-1628) endowed Udaipur with the territory of Chittogarh. He also created the two Rajput principalities of Kota and Bundi. Bharatpur was formed around 1650 in the time of emperor Shah Jahan (1628-1658), who granted Kota to Rao Madhu Singh.
In 1727, the ruler of the territory of Amber moved his capital to a site which he named Jaipur, extensive to all his princedom, designed to a grid pattern with spacious avenues. By then the Mughal Empire was in rapid decline--after reaching a peak of extension with Aurangzeb (1658-1707)--and the Rajput lord Pratap Singh formed Alwar independent of Jaipur ca1750.
When the Rajputs had to face British fire arms they gradually came to terms and became tributaries of British India. This happened during the first three decades of the 19th century in a quick and grab-as-can-grab way. For instance, Jaipur and Jaisalmer, widely separated from each other, became British dependencies in 1818, but Bharatpur, which was closer than the other two to the heart of British power in Uttar Pradesh, fell in 1825.
The British let the maharajas keep their titles and revenues, which they squandered in any way irresponsible royal figureheads can imagine. Rajasthan was impoverished during British colonial rule, but then so was Bihar. All of these former Rajputs states have impressive fortresses and palaces, especially notable in Jaipur, Chittogarh, Udaipur, Jodhpur, and Jaisalmer.
Rajputana is the collective name by which Rajput dynasties and statelets are known.
The Rajputs were military lords, important in Northern India from the 8th to the 12th centuries more for their disunited hegemony than for any specific state they created, although they did found many states, especially in Rajasthan. They claimed proudly to belong to the warrior kshatriya caste. Rajasthani is related to the other Indo-European languages of India. Rajputana is the collective name by which Rajput dynasties and statelets are known. Often it is used interchangeably with Rajasthan.
The Guptas were assailed by the Ephthalites, known to the Indians as Huna (ca450). The Ephthalites were contained but under a king called Toramana they formed a state (ca500) antagonistic to the Guptas, who eventually drove Toramana's son, Mihirakula, to Kashmir, where he gained infamy for his cruelties. The Huna were the antecessors of the Rajputs.
The downfall of the Gupta empire gave way to different dynasties in Gujarat, Bengal, Nepal, Kamarupa (modern Assam), and Orissa. In 606, Harsha formed a kingdom centered in Kanauj (on the Ganges River west of Delhi). Harsha tried but could not subdue the successor states of the Huna.
After Harsha's death in 647, his empire came apart. The Rajputs gradually and piecemeal extended their rule over northern India as far as Bengal. Early Rajasthani Hindu architecture can be seen in the Surya temple at Osian (ca800) and in the Nakti Mati temple at Bhavanipura (9th century).
The Gurjara Pratihara dynasty formed the strongest of the Rajput states, originally based in Gujarat but later extensive to Kanauj. Other Rajput dynasties and principalities (9th-11th centuries) were the Tomara (founders of Dhillikai, later Delhi), the Guhillas of Mewar, the Paramaras of Malwa, the Cahamanas of eastern Rajasthan, the Gahadavalas of Varanasi, the Kalachuris of Tripuri, the Chandellas of Bihar, Gwalior, and Jaunpur.
The Chandellas (11th century), whose imposing temples in Khajuraho (Madhya Pradesh), with their incredibly erotic sculptures (probably Tantric, on which see Bengal), reveal a more emollient side to the Rajputs. Khajuraho is a World Heritage Site.
During the 7th and 8th centuries, the Chalukyas were hegemonic in Central India. Together with the Kashmiri ruler Lalitaditya, they contained the Arabs who in 724 had gained a firm foothold in Sind (southern Pakistan). The Chalukyas were displaced in the central Deccan by the Rashtrakutas of Northern India. The Rashtrakutas warred indecisively with the Rajputs. In the early 10th century, the Rashtrakutas sacked Kanauj and broke the power of the Gurjara Pratihara.
During the 11th century the Rajput statelets were raided by Cholas from Southern India and by the Afghans Ghaznavids. During the 12th century, the Ghaznavids were dispossessed by the Ghurids, who defeated an allied Rajput army led by Prithviraj at Tarain in 1192. Ghurid generals founded the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th century.
After the crucial weakening of the Delhi Sultanate by Timur's devastating raid (1390), the Rajputs had a resurgence in Mewar, which fell to Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty. Rajputs served the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire as soldiers and administrators and either won for themselves or were awarded princely realms which they held on to literally suicidal extremes. In a gory war ceremony known as jauhar or ghaujar, Rajput warriors went out to face certain death in battle, when the odds were insuperable, while their women flung themselves and their children into flames. This did not always happen.
After the Muslim invasions, Rajputs states were all in the modern state of Rajasthan. Their rulers usually adopted the title of maharaja and their wives were known as maharanis. In the 13th century, there existed Chittor or Chittogarh. In 1459, Rao Jodha founded Jodhpur, formerly known as Marwar with its capital at Mandore. One of his descendants, Rao Bikaji, founded Bikaner in 1488. Babur granted the Rajputs the territory of Amber. The grandest Jain temple was built in 1439 with white marble to huge dimensions in a remote, arid valley between Jodhpur and Amber.
In 1568, Chittogarh, which had resisted many sieges and fallen more than once, was definitely captured by the Mughal emperor Akbar (1556-1605). However, the Maharana Udai Singh escaped the slaughter and founded an autonomous state in Udaipur. In 1570, Akbar granted Jaisalmer to a Rajput clan.
The Mughal Jahangir (1605-1628) endowed Udaipur with the territory of Chittogarh. He also created the two Rajput principalities of Kota and Bundi. Bharatpur was formed around 1650 in the time of emperor Shah Jahan (1628-1658), who granted Kota to Rao Madhu Singh.
In 1727, the ruler of the territory of Amber moved his capital to a site which he named Jaipur, extensive to all his princedom, designed to a grid pattern with spacious avenues. By then the Mughal Empire was in rapid decline--after reaching a peak of extension with Aurangzeb (1658-1707)--and the Rajput lord Pratap Singh formed Alwar independent of Jaipur ca1750.
When the Rajputs had to face British fire arms they gradually came to terms and became tributaries of British India. This happened during the first three decades of the 19th century in a quick and grab-as-can-grab way. For instance, Jaipur and Jaisalmer, widely separated from each other, became British dependencies in 1818, but Bharatpur, which was closer than the other two to the heart of British power in Uttar Pradesh, fell in 1825.
The British let the maharajas keep their titles and revenues, which they squandered in any way irresponsible royal figureheads can imagine. Rajasthan was impoverished during British colonial rule, but then so was Bihar. All of these former Rajputs states have impressive fortresses and palaces, especially notable in Jaipur, Chittogarh, Udaipur, Jodhpur, and Jaisalmer.
[right][snapback]56304[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nandibum,
This website is as misguided as you. Did you even read my reply to you? You are wasting your energies buddy.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> I think, v need to lighten a bit: