Leading tribes of Punjab and their origins
Yaqoob A
Before the advent of Islam and after the Aryan migrations, several invasions
and mass migrations of the Central Asian tribes named as the Sakas, Parthians,
Kushans, Huns and Gujjars took place in the Punjab (and other parts of
Pakistan). The last two tribes i.e. the Huns (White Huns/ Epthalites) and
Gujjars arrived in the 5th century AD when Hinduism had revived under the Gupta
Empire but had not fully succeeded in crushing the influence of Buddhism. As
the Gupta Empire collapsed under the impact of Hun invasions, it caused deep
consternation among Brahmins in view of their failure to eliminate Buddhism
while the Gupta power supporting them in this task had disappeared. Therefore,
they began to make overtures to the new arrivals who were valiant, vigorous and
warlike. They were offered the rank of Kshatryas in the Hindu fold, a position
only next to that of the Brahmins and confers the responsiblity of rulership.
In the course of time the leading groups of Huns were absorbed in the Hindu
fold as Kshatryas while Jats, who were the descendants of the remaining groups
of Huns, occupied a lower strata of society. But the present day Jats and
Rajputs also include the descendants of the previous invaders..... the Sakas
and the Kushans and even of earlier races.
Todd assigns Scythian origin to the Rajputs. Scythians came to be known as
Sakas in South Asia, and were absorbed in the Hindu fold as Kshatriyas. Sakas,
Yavannas (Greco-Bactrians), Pallavas (Parthians) ultimately became Kshatriyas.
The Huns are known to have been regarded as one of the 36 clans of Rajputs.
Almost 70% of the population of the Punjab comprises of Rajputs and Jats and
the various branches of their race such as Awans, Khokhars, Ghakkars, Khattars,
Janjuas, Arains, Gujjars, etc. though the Awans, Khokhars and Khattars claim
common ancestry from Qutb Shah who is said to have come from Ghazni with Mahmud
Ghaznavi, scholars hold the view that they were most probably converted by Qutb
Shah during Mahmud Ghaznavi's reign and were not his
descendents. This tendancy of claiming foreign origin by some of the local
tribes is not uncommon. Even admittedly Rajput tribes of famous ancestry such
as the Khokhar, have begun to follow the example of claiming connection with
the Mughal conquerors of India or the Qureshi cousins of the Prophet.
A branch of the Wattu Rajputs of the Sutlej by an affection of peculiar
sanctity, have in the course of a few generations become Bodeas and now deny
their Rajput and claim Qureshi origin. There is a Kharral family lately settled
in Bahawalpur who have begun to affect peculiar holiness and to marry only with
each other and their next step will certainly be to claim Arab descent.
According to Thomson, Awans are a Jat race and were converted to Islam by
Mahmud Ghaznavi. In several districts of the Punjab they are registered as
Jats. Mr. Thomson in his Jehlum Settlement report adduces many strong reasons
in support of his conclusion that the Awans are a Jat race who came from passes
west of D.I.Khan. Griffin also agrees to the Hindu origin of Awans while
Gunningham holds that Janjuas and Awans are descended from Anu and calls
them Anwan. Another scholar Wilson is of the view that Awans are indigenous and
of Hindu origin. In the genealogical tree of the Nawabs of Kalabagh, who are
regarded heads of the Awans, there are found several Hindu names such as Rai,
Harkaran, etc. They usually employed Brahmins as family priests.
As regards Gujjars, the well known scholar Cunningham thinks that they are
descended from Scythian (Saka) and Yue-Chi (Kushan) tribes who invaded Pakistan
in the first century BC and in the first century AD respectively. Since the
tribe migrated from Caspian Sea which is called Bahr-e-Khizar it was named
Khizar, Guzar, Gurjar, Gurjara or Gujjar. The name Hazara was given to the
district by these Guzara tribes. The name Gujjar, according to another
version, is derived from the words 'Gau' and 'Char' meaning cattle grazers.
Though Arains claim Iranian descent, they too are generally considered of
Rajput origin. According to the Punjab Gazetteer, the Arains of sahiwal
District themselves pointed out that they are Surajbansi Rajputs originally
settled around Delhi. Arains of Ghaggar Valley say that they were Rajputs
living on the Panjnad near Multan. Mr. Pursr writes that they are usually
supposed to be Muslim Kambohs. the Jullander Arains themselves say that they
are
descended from Rai Chajju of Ujjain. Kambohs claim descent from Raja Keran who
was related to him.
Similarly, Ranghars and Meos are described to be of Rajput/Jat origin who were
converted to Islam during the time of Qutbuddin Aibak. Kahutas are a mixed
Mughal and Rajput tribe. Khattars are related to Awans and Jats.
Khokhars are sometimes returned as Jats and sometimes as Rajputs. Col. Davis
notes that many of the social customs of the Khokhars of Shahpur denote Hindu
origin. Eastern Punjab Khokhars themselves claim Jat-Rajput origin. Only some
of the West Punjab Khokhars claim Arab origin.
Gen. Cunningham identifies the Ghakkars with Gangaridae of Dionysius and holds
them to be descendents of Yueti or Tokhari Scythians (sakas).
In Pakistan, Rajput and Jat tribes are so mixed up that it is difficult to
distinguish one from the other at many places and in several cases. Some of the
Rajput tribes are probably of Jat origin and vice versa. In southwest Punjab
the name Jat includes a most miscellaneous congries of tribes of all sorts. Its
significance tends to be occupational: to denote a body of cultivators or
agriculturists. Even tribes which bear well-known Rajput names are
often classified as Jats in the Punjab. Anyway, the origin of both is the same
as stated earlier.
Gen. Cunningham and Maj. Todd agree in considering the Jats of Indo-Scythian
stock. Maj. Todd classifies Jats as one of the great Rajput tribes. They belong
to one and thesame stock.... they have been, for many centuries, so blended and
so intermingled into one people that it is practically impossible to
distinguish them as separate wholes. At present distinction is social rather
ethnic. The same tribe Rajput in one district and Jat in another
according to the position in local tribes... During census many of the Jats
entered, as third heading, the name of the Rajput tribe from which they claim
to have sprung.
The Jats in ancient times inhabited the whole valley of the Indus down to
Sind.... They now form a most numerous as well as the most important section of
the agricultural population of Punjab.
Beyond the Punjab, Jats are chiefly found in Sind where they form mass of the
population.
The main (Muslim) Rajput tribes of the Punjab are: Bhatti, Punwar, Chauhan,
Minhas, Tiwana, Noon, Chib, Gheba, Jodhra, Janjua, Sial and Wattu etc. While
the important (Muslim) Jat tribes are: Bajwa, Chatta, Cheema, Randhawa,
Ghammon, Buta, Kahlon, Gil, Sehota, Taror, Waraich, Summa, Wahla, Bhutta,
Malhi, Sukhera, Alpials, Dahas, Langah, Ranghar, Meo, Awan, Khokhar, Ghakkar,
etc. But some of these Rajput tribes are classified are Jats and vice versa.
Punjab has had its periods of prosperity and poverty in a regular cycle. Before
the arrival of Muslims, Punjab along with the other regions/provinces of
present day Pakistan was leading a separate existance from that of India, and
kingdoms based in its territories or in the NWFP often ruled over most of
northern India. Kushan, Saka, Bactrian and Hun Kingdoms with their capitals at
Peshawar, Taxila and Sialkot respectively, ruled over large parts of
northern India for centuries.
J Raza
In a confused and rambling article full of errors Moin wrote:
Like many would be historians of the Punjab you are applying the
irrelevent standards of Hindustan to Punjab when discussing Punjabi
society.
> The main (Muslim) Rajput tribes of the Punjab are: Bhatti, Punwar, Chauhan,
> Minhas, Tiwana, Noon, Chib, Gheba, Jodhra, Janjua, Sial and Wattu etc.
Tiwana, Sial and Wattoo are Jatt tribes. Sial is the tribe of Heer in
Baba Waris Shah's Heer Ranjha. Sials claim royal descent but they don't
claim to be members of the Rajput caste as such. Tiwanas and Wattoos are
as Jatt as Jatt can be.
While
> the important (Muslim) Jat tribes are: Bajwa, Chatta, Cheema, Randhawa,
> Ghammon, Buta, Kahlon, Gil, Sehota, Taror, Waraich, Summa, Wahla, Bhutta,
> Malhi, Sukhera, Alpials, Dahas, Langah, Ranghar, Meo, Awan, Khokhar, Ghakkar,
Ghakkar is a Rajput tribe of Rawalpindi-Potohar. No Ghakkar claims to be
Jatt.
> etc. But some of these Rajput tribes are classified are Jats and vice versa.
Oh God. Poor confused Moin, knows nothing about Punjab but still insists
on sermonizing. Jatts and Rajputs are often extremely hostile to each
other. In Hindustan the Jaats are dominated by the Rajputs, in Punjab it
is the Jatt who is dominant, just ask Chaudry Shujaat Hussain.
> Punjab has had its periods of prosperity and poverty in a regular cycle. Before
> the arrival of Muslims, Punjab along with the other regions/provinces of
> present day Pakistan was leading a separate existance from that of India, and
> kingdoms based in its territories or in the NWFP often ruled over most of
> northern India. Kushan, Saka, Bactrian and Hun Kingdoms with their capitals at
> Peshawar, Taxila and Sialkot respectively, ruled over large parts of
> northern India for centuries.
Yeah sure. And you forgot to mention that the rulers of pre-Islamic
Punjab were Jatts. At the time of Sultan Mahamud and his boyfriend
Ayaz's invasion of Punjab the whole of the Punjab and North West
Froniter region was ruled by two groupings of Jatt tribes. One base
around Lahore led by Raja Jaipal and his son Anandpal and the other a
confederation based around Multan. The defeat of the Jatts in the 11th
century was the beginning of eight centuries of slavery for the Punjab.
Only with the rise of another Jatt, Ranjit Singh Sandhu, was Punjab
freed (temporarily) from slavery.
kind regards,
Jamil
Mo
Good article even if untrue
Nazeer Chaudhry
J Raza wrote:
> In a confused and rambling article full of errors Moin wrote:
>
> Like many would be historians of the Punjab you are applying the
> irrelevent standards of Hindustan to Punjab when discussing Punjabi
> society.
>
> > The main (Muslim) Rajput tribes of the Punjab are: Bhatti, Punwar,
> Chauhan,
> > Minhas, Tiwana, Noon, Chib, Gheba, Jodhra, Janjua, Sial and Wattu
> etc.
>
> Tiwana, Sial and Wattoo are Jatt tribes. Sial is the tribe of Heer in
> Baba Waris Shah's Heer Ranjha. Sials claim royal descent but they
> don't
> claim to be members of the Rajput caste as such. Tiwanas and Wattoos
> are
> as Jatt as Jatt can be.
>
> While
> > the important (Muslim) Jat tribes are: Bajwa, Chatta, Cheema,
> Randhawa,
> > Ghammon, Buta, Kahlon, Gil, Sehota, Taror, Waraich, Summa, Wahla,
> Bhutta,
> > Malhi, Sukhera, Alpials, Dahas, Langah, Ranghar, Meo, Awan, Khokhar,
> Ghakkar,
>
> Ghakkar is a Rajput tribe of Rawalpindi-Potohar. No Ghakkar claims to
> be
> Jatt.
>
> > etc. But some of these Rajput tribes are classified are Jats and
> vice versa.
>
> Oh God. Poor confused Moin, knows nothing about Punjab but still
> insists
> on sermonizing. Jatts and Rajputs are often extremely hostile to each
> other. In Hindustan the Jaats are dominated by the Rajputs, in Punjab
> it
> is the Jatt who is dominant, just ask Chaudry Shujaat Hussain.
>
> > Punjab has had its periods of prosperity and poverty in a regular
> cycle. Before
> > the arrival of Muslims, Punjab along with the other
> regions/provinces of
> > present day Pakistan was leading a separate existance from that of
> India, and
> > kingdoms based in its territories or in the NWFP often ruled over
> most of
> > northern India. Kushan, Saka, Bactrian and Hun Kingdoms with their
> capitals at
> > Peshawar, Taxila and Sialkot respectively, ruled over large parts of
>
> > northern India for centuries.
>
> Yeah sure. And you forgot to mention that the rulers of pre-Islamic
> Punjab were Jatts. At the time of Sultan Mahamud and his boyfriend
> Ayaz's invasion of Punjab the whole of the Punjab and North West
> Froniter region was ruled by two groupings of Jatt tribes. One base
> around Lahore led by Raja Jaipal and his son Anandpal and the other a
> confederation based around Multan. The defeat of the Jatts in the 11th
>
> century was the beginning of eight centuries of slavery for the
> Punjab.
> Only with the rise of another Jatt, Ranjit Singh Sandhu, was Punjab
> freed (temporarily) from slavery.
>
> kind regards,
>
> Jamil
Tiwanas are jats. I know that for fact because i am a jat and my subcast
is Tiwana. Peace
J Raza
Nazeer Chaudhry wrote:
>
> Tiwanas are jats. I know that for fact because i am a jat and my subcast
> is Tiwana. Peace
What about Kharals? Are they Jatt or Rajput? Is it true that Khawaja
Ghulam Farid was a Kharal?
regards,
Jamil
Gurupdesh Singh
Mo wrote:
>
> Good article even if untrue
Mo you and your fellow Brahmanists probably prefer Brahmanist
fairy tales (in which monkeys, animals, and devtas shape human events)
to history derived from historical sources, manuscripts, coins,
archeology
and the social sciences.
Below is a historical account of the origin of Rajputs in the Scythic
provinces of the northwest subcontinent.
According to historians who have studied Jat/Gujar/Rajput origins,
Rajputs arose out of Jats/Gujars during the 9-11th century. As
Brahmanism
swarmed northward from Tamil Nadu (engineered by Shankarcharya, Ramanuj)
during
this period snuffing out Buddhist domination, some of the Scythic
communities
in the north-west who formally left Buddhism to convert to Brahmanism
began calling themselves "Rajputs" (see references below). Even the
province south of
Rajasthan - Gujarat - is derived from the Scythic "Gujars".
Here is a quote from Denzil Ibbetson( p. 100; ref. below) on
Jats/Rajputs
as observed in the north during the 19th century (Sir Ibbetson was
in charge of the "1881 Census of the Punjab Province"):
"It may be that the original Rajput and the original Jat entered India
at different periods in its history, though in my mind the term Rajput
is an occupational rather than an ethnological expression. But if they
do originally represent two separate waves of immigration, it is at
least
exceedingly probable, both from their almost identical physique and
facial character and from the close communion which has always existed
between them that they belong to the one and same ethnic stock;
while whether this be so or not, it is almost certain that they have
been
for many centuries and still are so intermingled and so blended into
one people that it is practically impossible to distinguish them as
separate wholes".
According to Ethnographers and historians like Cunningham, Todd,
Ibbetson,
Elliot, Ephilstone, Dahiya, Dhillon, Banerjea, etc., the
agrarian/artisan communities (e.g.
Jats/Gujars/Ahirs/Rajputs/Lohars/Tarkhans etc.) of the entire northwest
are derived from the war-like Scythians who settled north-western
southasia in successive waves between 500 B.C. to 500 AD.
Sir Cunningham (former Director General of Archeology, India) writes:
"the different races of the Scythians which succesively appeared as
conquerors in the border provinces of Persian and India are the
following in
the order of arrival: Sakas or Sacae (the Su or Sai of the Chinese -
B.C. ?), Kushans (the great Yue-Chi (Yuti) of the Chinese - B.C. 163),
Kiddarite or later Kushans (the little Yue-chi of the Chinese - A.D.
450) and Epthalites or White Huns (the Yetha of the Chinese - 470
A.D.)".
Cunningham further writes ". . . the successive Scythian invasions of
the Sakas, the Kushans, and the White Huns, were followed by permanent
settlements of large bodies of their countrymen . . ".
Scythians spanning central asia at the time of Herodotus (5th century
B.C.) consisted of 4 main branches known as the MassaGatea, Sacae,
Alani, and Sarmatians, sharing a common language, ethnicity and
culture. Ancient Greek (e.g. Herodotus, Pliny, Plotemy, Arrian) and
Persian sources (Darius's historians) from the 5th century place the
MassaGatea as the most southerly group in the central asian steppe. The
earliest Scythians who entered the northern regions of southasia were
from this group (historians derive "Jat" fom "Gatae" and "Massa" means
"grand" or "big" in old Iranian - the language of the Scythians).
Herrodotus reveal that the Scythians as far back as 5th century B.C. had
political control over central asia and the northern subcontinent up to
the river Ganges. Later Indo-Scythic clans/dynasties (e.g. Mauryas,
Dharan-Guptas) extended there control to other tracts of the northern
subcontinent. During the Punjab regions Gandharan Buddhist period
(500 BC - 900 AD), descendents of these Scythians patronized Buddhism
and had political and military control over this region till the 11th
century A.D.
Some of these Scythic groups entered the northwest through the Kyber
pass, others through the more southerly Bolan pass which opens into Dera
Ismail Khan in Sindh -- an entry point into Gujarat and Rajasthan. From
here some invading groups went north (Punjab), others went south
(Maharasthra), and others further east (UP, MP). This explains why some
Jats/Gujjar/Rajputs clans claim origins from Rajasthan (Chauhan, Powar,
Rathi, Sial etc.) while others to Afghanistan (e.g. Mann, Her, Bhullar,
Gill, Bajwa, Sandhu, etc.). This is supported by the fact that oldest
Rajput geneologies (9-11th centuries) do not precede into the
northwest's Gandharan Buddhist period (500 B.C. - 900 AD). The oldest
Rajputs clans found in southern and western Rajasthan arose much later
from earlier Scythic groups; or are of Hun origin (5-6th century AD);
and many are no doubt of mixed Scythic-Hun origin.
Insights into the political state of Punjab comes from the historian
Feristha who travelled with Mahmud Ghaznavi in the early 11th century.
He describes Mahmud's campaigns in Punjab/Sindh as against Jat power.
In these wars, which involved naval confrontations in the Sindh and Beas
rivers, confederated Jat forces were lead by Rajas Jaipal and Anangpal.
Ironically, Anangpal was defeated and killed at Attock (NWF) in 1026 -
this
is the same site where Ranjit Singh (also a Jat) crushed the last
attempt by Shah Shuja of Afghanistan to reclaim Punjab. Later the
Punjabi army would enter Kabul itself.
Some References on Indo-Scythians
----------------------------------
Banerjea, J.N. (1987), The Scythians and Parthians in India, in
a
Comprehensive History of India, edited by K.A.N. Sastri, Vol.
2,
Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, India, 1987, pp 186-309,
pp
830-838.
Banerji, R.D. (1909), The Scythian Period in Indian History,
Indian
Antiquary, Vol. XXXVII, pp 25-74.
Bingley, A.H. (1978), History, Caste & Culture of the Jats and Gujars,
Ess Ess
Publications, New Delhi, India (first published in 1899).
Cunningham, A. (1971), Coins of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas, and Kushanas,
Reprinted by Indological Book House, Varanasi, India (first
published
1888).
-------(1979), Later Indo-Scythians (Coins), No. 11, Reprinted by
Indological
Book House, varanasi, India (first published 1893-94).
-------(1963), Coins of Ancient India: from the earliest times down to
the
seventh century A.D., reprinted by Indological Book House,
Varanasi,
India.
Dhillon, B.S. (1994), History and Study of the Jats, Beta Publishers
Inc.,
Ottawa, Canada
Dahiya, B.S. (1980), Jats: The Ancient Rulers, Sterling Publishers Pvt.
Ltd.,
New Delhi, India.
Eggmont, P.H.L. (1970), Alexander's Campaign in Gandhara and Ptolemy's
List
of Indo-Scythian Towns, Orientalis Lavaniensia Periodica I, pp
3-123.
Gupta, P.L. (1988), Coins, National Book Trust, New Delhi, India, pp
51-52.
Hewitt, J.F. (1894), The Ruling Races of Prehistorical Times in
India,
South-Western Asia, and Southern Europe, Archibald Constable &
Co. ,
London, pp. 481-487.
Herodotus (B.C. 490-425): The Histories, translated by de Selincourt,
Penguin
Books, New York, 1988.
Ibbetson, Denzil (1916), Punjab Castes: Races, Castes and Tribes of the
People
of Panjab, Cosmos Punblications, New Delhi (1981).
Jats, The New Encylopaedia Britannica, Vol. Encyclopedia Britannica,
Inc.,
Chicago, pp. 510.
The Getae and the Dacians, and Sarmatae and Parthians, in The
Cambridge
Ancient History, edited by S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock, M.P.
Charlesworth,
Vol. II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1954.
Pradhan, M.C. (1966), The Political System of the Jats of Northern
India,
Oxford University Press, London.
Ptolemy (90-168 A.D.), Geography of Claudius Ptolemy, translated and
edited
by E.L. Stevenson, The New York Public Library, New York, 1932.
Mahil, U.S. (1955), Antiquity of Jat Race, Atma Ram & Sons, Delhi,
India.
McCrindle, J.W. (1987), Ancient India as Described in Classical
Literature,
reprinted by Eastern Book House, Patna, India, pp 164-165
(first
published 1901).
Mc Govern, W.N. (1939), The early Empires of Central Asia, he University
of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pp 419-21.
Pliny, (A.D. 23-79): Natural History, translated by H. Rackham,
Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1947.
Rolle, R. (1989), The World of the Scythians, University of California
Press,
Berkeley.
Sara, I. (1978), The Scythian Origin of the Jat-SIkh (Part 1 & 2), The
Sikh
Review, pp. 15-27, pp. 214-233.
Sinha, B.P., Journal of Bihar Research Society, XXXVII, parts 3-4, pp
142.
Smith, V. A. (1903), The Kushana or Indo-Scythian Period in Indian
History
(165 B.C.-320 A.D.), Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
Great
Britain and Ireland, pp. 1-64.
Tod, J.(1972), Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Vol. 1, Routledge &
Kegan
Paul Ltd., London, pp. 623(first published in 1829).
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <6cunu7$5ha$7...@eros.clara.net>, 11305...@compuserve.com (Mo) wrote:
>Good article even if untrue
Mo you and your fellow Brahmanists probably prefer Brahmanist
fairy tales (in which monkeys, animals, and devtas shape human events)
to history derived from historical sources, manuscripts, coins, archeology
and the social sciences.
Below is an account of the Scythian/Hun origin of Rajputs.
According to historians who have studied Jat/Rajput origins,
Rajputs arose out of Jats/Gujars during the 9-11th century. As Brahmanism
swarmed northward from Tamil Nadu (Shankarcharya, Ramanuj) during this period
snuffing out Buddhist domination, some of the Scythic communities in the
north-west who formally left Buddhism to convert to Brahmanism began calling
themselves "Rajputs" (see references below). Even the province south of
Rajasthan - Gujarat - is derived from the Scythic "Gujars".
Here is a quote from Denzil Ibbetson( p. 100; ref. below) on Jats/Rajputs
as observed in the north during the 19th century (Sir Ibbetson was
in charge of the "1881 Census of the Punjab Province"):
"It may be that the original Rajput and the original Jat entered India
at different periods in its history, though in my mind the term Rajput
is an occupational rather than an ethnological expression. But if they
do originally represent two separate waves of immigration, it is at least
exceedingly probable, both from their almost identical physique and
facial character and from the close communion which has always existed
between them that they belong to the one and same ethnic stock;
while whether this be so or not, it is almost certain that they have been
for many centuries and still are so intermingled and so blended into
one people that it is practically impossible to distinguish them as
Mo
So what ? Just as Dalit Sikhs, Khatri Sikhs, Jat Sikhs ..all
today consider themselves Sikhs whatever their racial
origins , so Rajput Hindus , Jat Hindus ( and there are more
than Jat Sikhs) , Dalit Hindus .. all consider themselves
equal Hindus today .
Its only in Islam that Sunnis think they are top dogs and
everybody else is inferior -when the opposite is true and
the Ahmadis dont want to associate with anyone else.
J Raza
An interesting post Gurupdesh, but the fact remains that Jatts and
Rajputs are often rivals, and sometimes enemies. These common origins,
even if proved true, will mean very little to the average Jatt or
Rajput.
Most of the prominent Jatt politicians and landowners in West Punjab are
casteist. And it is usually Rajputs and Gujjars who are their victims.
Likewise in the few areas of West Punjab where Rajputs are stronger than
Jatts (i.e. Rawalpindi and Bhimber) they will never fail to attempt to
get one over on the them. I have reason to believe that the situation is
the same in East Punjab.
regards,
Jamil
Yaqoob A
Very good work Gurupdesh Singh!!!
Gurupdesh Singh
J Raza wrote:
>
> An interesting post Gurupdesh, but the fact remains that Jatts and
> Rajputs are often rivals, and sometimes enemies. These common origins,
> even if proved true, will mean very little to the average Jatt or
> Rajput.
>
> Most of the prominent Jatt politicians and landowners in West Punjab are
> casteist. And it is usually Rajputs and Gujjars who are their victims.
> Likewise in the few areas of West Punjab where Rajputs are stronger than
> Jatts (i.e. Rawalpindi and Bhimber) they will never fail to attempt to
> get one over on the them. I have reason to believe that the situation is
> the same in East Punjab.
>
> regards,
>
> Jamil
As you correctly mentioned, there has been some level of traditional
rivalry between
the two groups. More so in some areas than others. However, political
and social
relationships are always dynamic - especially between ethnically and
culturally
homogeneous communities. Indeed, prior to the 10th century AD, no such
rivalry
would have existed - because there were no "Rajputs" around, anywhere!
In fact, they
would have been your typical Jat or Gujjar with the same clan names,
occupation
(zamindar, soldier), culture, Buddhist religion, etc. The schism that
developed owes itself to new social/caste divisions that appeared as
Tamilian Brahmanism (spawned by Shankarcharya, Ramanuj, etc. from Tamil
Nadu) expanded from the south to the north and began to replace Buddhist
domination during the 9-11th century AD. Some former Jats/Gujjars who
took Brahmins more seriously started wearing their thread were labelled
"Rajputs". Also, this priesthood for their own political/religious
objectives had a vested interest in instigating and pitting them against
each other - even if no good reason existed.
When these "Rajputs" began competing with the traditional Jats/Gujars
for rule/land, the rivalry had a political-economy basis. (During the
12-17th centuries,
many Rajputs even teamed-up with "foreign" adventures like Afghans and
Moguls.)
However, presently in the Indian part of the north-west, both Jats as
Rajputs
have been politically crushed and usurped by the Brahmanists as the new
political
class and elites. So much for old rivalries!
Since 1947, the 7% OCs have come to dominate almost all the high level
positions in
the political system, beaurocracy, adminstration, officer core in
army/police, etc.
Even in the army/police, majority of Jats/Rajputs are mostly
"chownkidars" and advance only to middle-level operational positions
while the Brahmanists have a virtual lock
on top decision-making and policy jobs of the country.
(Intriguingly, when the Brits began creating India during the 18-19th
century,
Brahmanists did not have rule/control over even one
Raj-dhani/sirkar/army/etc.
anywhere in the subcontinent).
Many of the agrarian/economic policies put into place after 1947 by the
new Brahmanist
order in India have been to the political and economic detriment of both
Jats
and Rajputs. Example include:
- imposition of land ceilings (e.g. 18 acres/household);
- low fixing of agrarian prices (50% below international prices);
- politically mobolizing Dalits against them (while in reality the
centers of
powers and wealth distribution had shifted to the 7%OCs);
- using the "License and Permit Raj" to lock non-OCs out of new
economic sectors (in which only Brahmanists have been allowed to
invest
and profit);
- even local domination of village panchayats by Congress.
Indeed, the supposed traditional rivalry between Rajputs/Jats and other
Scythic
communities - which makes no sense in the present except to serve the
on-going
Brahmanist hegemony - has been used to divide and rule over the
traditional
centers of power in the Scythic provinces in India's northwest (East
Punjab,
HP, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, western UP/MP). Current political and
economic
realities and interests dictate that both groups (who togethor with
other
agrarian/artisan communities of common origin form the majority of the
population
in the region) should wisen up to the political game and manipulation
and unite
for their own self-preservation and common economic/cultural prosperity
and
development.
If they are able to get their act togethor, within 10-20 years, this
region with
its dynamic and industrious population (pop. approx 200 million) and
cultural
base could easily become the lion of southasia! In the not-too distant
future, even a new confederation of independent states may arise in the
entire
northwest.
Ishfaq Ahmed
J Raza (ee...@sun.awaywiththee.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
> > The main (Muslim) Rajput tribes of the Punjab are: Bhatti, Punwar, Chauhan,
> > Minhas, Tiwana, Noon, Chib, Gheba, Jodhra, Janjua, Sial and Wattu etc.
Aren't Bhatti and Chuhan, among Gujjar tribes?
Ishfaq
Ishfaq Ahmed
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> Mo wrote:
> According to historians who have studied Jat/Gujar/Rajput origins,
> Rajputs arose out of Jats/Gujars during the 9-11th century. As
Rajput must be considered Gujjars as the word "Rajput" itself suggests. Rajput is a
pure Gujri word which means son of ruler. The term was coined during Mughal King
Akbar's time when he (Akbar) married Gujjar women and the childern out of these Gujjar
women he did not accept as his heirs (because they were not pure Mughals). He silenced
their demands by giving them Jagirs and the title of Rajput. This also explains why
many gujjar tribes are equally considered as rajput tribes, e.g. Bhatti, Chuhan etc.
Ishfaq
J Raza
Ishfaq Ahmed wrote:
>
> J Raza (ee...@sun.awaywiththee.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> > > The main (Muslim) Rajput tribes of the Punjab are: Bhatti, Punwar, Chauhan,
> > > Minhas, Tiwana, Noon, Chib, Gheba, Jodhra, Janjua, Sial and Wattu etc.
>
>
> Ishfaq
Bhattis and Chauhans are Rajputs.
regards,
Jamil
Gurupdesh Singh
Mo wrote:
>
> So what ? Just as Dalit Sikhs, Khatri Sikhs, Jat Sikhs ..all
> today consider themselves Sikhs whatever their racial
> origins , so Rajput Hindus , Jat Hindus ( and there are more
> than Jat Sikhs) , Dalit Hindus .. all consider themselves
> equal Hindus today .
As long as we all agree that the real grand-uncle of "Hindus"
and "Hindusthan" is Muhammed Ghori not Nehru or Gandhi.
Also, most of the "Hindu" Rajputs/Jats I know consider
their primary identity to be Rajput/Jat first and anything
else second. They dont even inter-marry with the
7% Brahmanists (e.g. Brahmins/Banias) who since the 19
century have been using their fraud history to give the
Afghan-Mogul's "Hindus" and "Hindusthan" a radically
pro-Brahmanist interpretation and want to loop them into
their flock of "Hindus" (along with Dalits) and
rule/dominate over them politically and economically.
Also, I dont know how Brahmanists can even claim that the
majority of their so-called "Hindus" - the Dalits/Harijans
(80%) - were part of their religious community when prior to
the 19th century they
1) Would consider the "low castes" to be polluted and not
even eat food with them,
2) Would not let them enter Brahmanical temples,
3) Did not consider them worthy of knowing Brahmanical
religious texts.
If I was barred from entering a religious shrine or knowing
the holy books of a religion/community I dont see how I
would be a member of that religious community in any sense!
So even, after Hindusim rose between 8-11th
century to replace Buddhism, majority of southasians
(80%) never belonged to the Brahmin caste cult. It was
clever politics by Brahmanist politicians in the post-19th
century period to get Dalits/Harijans (whose Buddhist
forefathers had access to all Buddhist institutions
- e.g. dharamshalas, universities) branded as "Hindu".
In fact, this was the first coup d'etat of Mahatama Gandhi
whose first agitation was aimed at getting the British to
declare the scheduled castes as "Hindus" in the 1920s.
This was the British pay-off for his loyal services to
the British WWI war effort in which Gandhi was their
staunchest ally. With one pen-stroke, the mysterious
"Hindus" in British India became a 65% majority
(25% were Muslims, 25% Sikhs/Christians/Buddhist/scheduled
tribes/etc).
The rest of Brahmanist politics of the Congress was
built around communalizing pre-independence politics
around this 65% Hindu majority to make political,
religious, and nationalistic (Hindu nation) claims over
all of southasia - a casteocracy in which the 7% Brahmanists
would be the ruling class.
Mo
ee...@sun.awaywiththeespammer.leeds.ac.uk (J Raza) wrote:
>Most of the prominent Jatt politicians and landowners in West Punjab are
casteist. And it is usually Rajputs and Gujjars who are
their victims. <
a Bedi said there were to be no more Gurus after him ! He
was worried lest a Jatt became a Guru as so many of them
were becoming Sardarjis ! His last words were I believe
'Kite koi Jatt Guru na ban jaye ! '
Mo
Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu> wrote:
.However, presently in the Indian part of the north-west,
both Jats as Rajputs have been politically crushed and
usurped by the Brahmanists as the new political class and
elites. <
Brahmins left in India -most have emigrated to USA - and the
ones who remain are dirt poor denied any rights by the
casteist Scythian Jatts.
Mo
Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu> wrote:
.new Brahmanist order in India have been to the political
and economic detriment of both
Jats and Rajputs. Example include:
- imposition of land ceilings (e.g. 18 acres/household); <
end? This is only for irrigated land .
international prices , so much so that the Tamils are
threatening to buy wheat from Australia if Punjabis remain
unreasonable. Prices are low internationally anyway and the
Punjabi farmers have a good case for being paid double the
international price , instead of as at present just slightly
higher.
>- politically mobolizing Dalits against them (while in reality the
centers of powers and wealth distribution had shifted to
the 7%OCs); <
denied job oppurtunites by the Mandal commission.
>- using the "License and Permit Raj" to lock non-OCs out of new economic sectors (in which only Brahmanists
have been allowed toinvest and profit); <
Brahmis are not even into manufacturing
> - even local domination of village panchayats by Congress. <
gaining power at village level through democracy the
Scythinak Jatts are unhappy. Tough !
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <6d583f$8ma$1...@eros.clara.net>, 11305...@compuserve.com (Mo) wrote:
>Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>..new Brahmanist order in India have been to the political
>and economic detriment of both
>Jats and Rajputs. Example include:
>- imposition of land ceilings (e.g. 18 acres/household); <
>end? This is only for irrigated land .
No ALL AGRICULTURAL LAND.
Look at the Indian landownership data from the early 1950s - before
land reforms began. The fattest layer of "feudal lords" (those owning
say over 100 acres/household) did not collectively own more than 6% of
the total agrarian land in southasia. Feudal lords existed in the
19th and earlier centuries, but primarily due to population growth
the size of landholdings had diminished and the number of very large
landowners was insignificant by the mid-20th century. Even studies
carried out by GOI in the 50s before mechanization conclude that an
operational land-size of around 30 acres was required for efficient
farm production. The land ceiling was set at 18 acres/household.
The realities of land owership in southasia during the 1950 were very
different from Brahmanist propaganda against zamindars and cultivators.
It was a political stunt to divide and destabilize rural society and to set-up
a rural vote bank for Brahmanist politicians, especially in the Congress.
Meanwhile a lower middle-class urban house owned by an OC clerk
is worth more that 20 acres of land in rural India. How about
practicing 'true socialism" (as opposed to "Kirar socialism")
and getting the dalit urban poor to move into spare rooms
of urban houses? Start with Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and
Calcutta
Also, how about imposing ceilings (1) on how many hattis, dukans,
businesses, and factories Banias/Lalas could own - and distributing
the surplus to the poor Dalits. Also give them 80% of the
manager-level positions in the beaurocracy and state-run industries
(90% of whom are held by 7% Brahmanists). And let them also have
the same proportion of licenses/permits to start-up their own businesses
and invest in growing industries/sectors.
But if all this was to happen, then supremacist Brahmanists would
not be able to corner the largest chunk of the wealth/income/rishwat
generated in the Indian economy and keep on blaming the poverty created by
the Casteocracy's policies on those nonexisten big bad "feudal lords"!
The real enemy of the Indian masses, poverty, and economic growth
is the criminal, corrupt, centralized, and rent-seeking Casteocracy set up
by hegemonic and supremacist Brahmanists after 1947.
Mo
Why blame the Brahmins. Land ceilings are a provincial
matter. Le the Akalis raise it if they want . the amssive
pop growth -threefold in less than 50 years has caused a
huge reduction in availaible land per capita -but that is
the fault of the do-gooder liberals .
They should have brought in a strict three child limit and
should od so now , otherwise the pop of the poor will grow
another threefold in Punjab in the next 50 years and each
farmer will have only 5 acres.
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya
In article <6d4g3t$hlc$1...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>,
Ishfaq Ahmed <ahme...@news.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>> Mo wrote:
>
>> Rajputs arose out of Jats/Gujars during the 9-11th century. As
>
>pure Gujri word which means son of ruler. The term was coined during Mughal King
>Akbar's time when he (Akbar) married Gujjar women and the childern out of these Gujjar
>women he did not accept as his heirs (because they were not pure Mughals). He silenced
>their demands by giving them Jagirs and the title of Rajput. This also explains why
>many gujjar tribes are equally considered as rajput tribes, e.g. Bhatti, Chuhan etc.
You mean there were no Rajputs before Akbar? You mean to tell us that Rana
Pratap who fought Akbar all his life, was the son of Akbar? BTW there are
Jat tribes of Chauhans also. And the Maharaja of Bharatpur was a Jat.
Brij
----
Y. Malaiya
Ishfaq Ahmed wrote:
> Rajput must be considered Gujjars as the word "Rajput" itself suggests. Rajput is a
> pure Gujri word which means son of ruler. The term was coined during Mughal King
> Akbar's time when he (Akbar) married Gujjar women
No, Rajputs are much older.
The King Harshavardhan of Thanesar has been called Rajputra in one of his
inscriptions.
The history of some Rajput clans like Rathore goes back further in time.
Yashwant
J Raza
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya wrote:
>
> In article <6d4g3t$hlc$1...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>,
> Ishfaq Ahmed <ahme...@news.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> >Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> >> Mo wrote:
> >
> >> Rajputs arose out of Jats/Gujars during the 9-11th century. As
> >
> >pure Gujri word which means son of ruler. The term was coined during Mughal King
> >women he did not accept as his heirs (because they were not pure Mughals). He silenced
> >their demands by giving them Jagirs and the title of Rajput. This also explains why
> >many gujjar tribes are equally considered as rajput tribes, e.g. Bhatti, Chuhan etc.
>
> You mean there were no Rajputs before Akbar? You mean to tell us that Rana
> Pratap who fought Akbar all his life, was the son of Akbar? BTW there are
> Jat tribes of Chauhans also.
Do you mean Jatt or Jaat?
This is really confusing. I know of a Chauhan family in Pakistan that
claim to be Gujjar, while most Chauhans are Rajputs. Now you say that
there are Jat Chauhans. How can that be?
regards,
Jamil
Ishfaq Ahmed
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya (b...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
> In article <6d4g3t$hlc$1...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>,
> Ishfaq Ahmed <ahme...@news.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> >Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> >> Mo wrote:
> >
> >> Rajputs arose out of Jats/Gujars during the 9-11th century. As
> >
> >pure Gujri word which means son of ruler. The term was coined during Mughal King
> >Akbar's time when he (Akbar) married Gujjar women and the childern out of these Gujjar
> >women he did not accept as his heirs (because they were not pure Mughals). He silenced
> >their demands by giving them Jagirs and the title of Rajput. This also explains why
> >many gujjar tribes are equally considered as rajput tribes, e.g. Bhatti, Chuhan etc.
> You mean there were no Rajputs before Akbar? You mean to tell us that Rana
> Pratap who fought Akbar all his life, was the son of Akbar? BTW there are
> Jat tribes of Chauhans also. And the Maharaja of Bharatpur was a Jat.
Whoever they were they were not identified as Rajput if they were not gujjars. They
were called as Rana, or Rajkumar but not Rajput. Rajputs are Gujjar descends of
Akbar's seed. Technically they are either Mughals or Gujjars but not a separate clan.
Rana partab must be considered a Gujjar and not a Rajput.
Ishfaq
*****************************************************************************
Cruel is not one who beats, but... does not let you cry when beats
unkown
Ishfaq Ahmed
Department of Range Resources
University of Idaho e-mail: ahme...@uidaho.edu
Moscow, ID 83844-1135 web: http://www.uidaho.edu/~ahmed901
******************************************************************************
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya
In article <34F6FA...@sun.nospam.leeds.ac.uk>,
J Raza <ee...@sun.nospam.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> You mean there were no Rajputs before Akbar? You mean to tell us that Rana
>> Pratap who fought Akbar all his life, was the son of Akbar? BTW there are
>> Jat tribes of Chauhans also.
>
Rigveda calls them Jaat, but they are knows by various versions of the word.
>This is really confusing. I know of a Chauhan family in Pakistan that
>claim to be Gujjar, while most Chauhans are Rajputs. Now you say that
>there are Jat Chauhans. How can that be?
In the 8-9th century, Rajputs were created by the priestly class to serve
the kingdoms of Rajasthan, out of Jats/Gujjars.
Brij
----
John Wagner
Mo (11305...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Why blame the Brahmins. Land ceilings are a provincial
I think that America has a surprising solution to the old
land-lord problem that plagued Europe and Asia, and caused its
landless sons and daughters to come here. The solution? Periodically
reappraised property taxes. If a government will protect someone's
ownership of property, and pay to support the army which protects that
property, should not that property owner be taxed relative to the value
of the property?
In America it is very expensive to holdland without using it.
I have known of people who sold mansions and estates to
avoid paying property taxes. As a result they sold it to people who
could make active productive use of it.
John Wagner
Naeem
-- naeem --
J Raza
Bhattis and Chauhans are not castes as such, they are tribes of the
Rajput caste, or if you like, subcastes of the Rajput caste. As for one
being higher than the other, I don't think so, but Bhattis are a far
more numerous and influential tribe in Pakistan than Chauhaans.
regards,
Jamil
> -- naeem --
J Raza
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya wrote:
>
> In article <34F6FA...@sun.nospam.leeds.ac.uk>,
> J Raza <ee...@sun.nospam.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> You mean there were no Rajputs before Akbar? You mean to tell us that Rana
> >> Pratap who fought Akbar all his life, was the son of Akbar? BTW there are
> >> Jat tribes of Chauhans also.
> >
> >Do you mean Jatt or Jaat?
>
> Rigveda calls them Jaat, but they are knows by various versions of the word.
I don't think Punjabi Jatts and Hindustani Jaats can be regarded as
being one community. There may be a common descent, but that is now so
far in the past as to be meaningless.
> >This is really confusing. I know of a Chauhan family in Pakistan that
> >claim to be Gujjar, while most Chauhans are Rajputs. Now you say that
> >there are Jat Chauhans. How can that be?
>
> In the 8-9th century, Rajputs were created by the priestly class to serve
> the kingdoms of Rajasthan, out of Jats/Gujjars.
Those pesky brahmins again!
regards,
Jamil
> Brij
> ----
Gurupdesh Singh
Y. Malaiya wrote:
>
> Ishfaq Ahmed wrote:
>
> > Rajput must be considered Gujjars as the word "Rajput" itself suggests. Rajput is a
> > pure Gujri word which means son of ruler. The term was coined during Mughal King
> > Akbar's time when he (Akbar) married Gujjar women
>
>
> The King Harshavardhan of Thanesar has been called Rajputra in one of his
> inscriptions.
Harshavardhan was the last great Buddhist King of South Gandhara
(Punjab/Afghanistan region 500BC to 900AD). Cunningham, Tod,
Sinha, Dehiya, Banerjea, etc. (I gave over 35 references in earlier
post) who have analyzed his coins and manuscripts from the period
(8-9th century) determine him to be a Buddhist Jat of the Bains
clan. His kids began to patronize Brahmanism more heavily,
but Harshavardhan himself remained a Buddhist.
Haroon H. Dogar
ee...@sun.nospam.leeds.ac.uk (J Raza) writes:
>regards,
>Jamil
Every tribe thinks their own tribe higher than any other tribe. Trust me. :-)
Such is (unfortunately) life.
There is nothing wrong with being proud of who and what you are but
there is everything wrong with denigrating others because of who or
what they are or with disliking other because of their tribe or
their station or their ethnic background or their language or their
education ... Even where it does count, one's character, aqeeda, imaan,
don't hate the man or woman, hate the action.
Mo
Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>If I was barred from entering a religious shrine or knowing
the holy books of a religion/community I dont see how I
would be a member of that religious community in any sense!<
India is a free country . Nobody is compelled to remain a
Hindu on pain of death as in Islam. Caste system was
outlawed 50 years ago -under Brahmin ( Nehru) rule and the
lower castes were given additional privelages . Its only in
the Gurudwaras that some lower caste Sikhs are discouraged
from entering.
The caste sytem gives people an identity -for eg Patels may
tend to stick together , Jatts go to their own Gurudwaras
etc. The educated however are coming together regardless of
caste. Many couldnt even tell you anymore what caste they
are.
All Hindus ENJOY aspects of Hinduism - the freedom of
speech , the temples , sing songs , festivals , dances and
via the media it is reconquering the subcontinent as
Hinduism is closer to our natural animist/pagan/nature
worshipping origins than blinkered monotheism and excessive
praise of a non existent God.
The reason you are mad at 'Brahmins' but really at all
Hindus is that you cant compete with them inspite of the
Brits giving favourable treatment to fellow 'martial'
monotheist religions.
And why cant you compete ? Because as monotheist you
restrict your vision to one aspect of human experience . Do
Sikhs worship/revere animals , women , mountains ? No . They
would rather the priest utter low incomprehensible sounds
in the dark of the Gurudwaras with everybody sitting around
bored out of their minds , and the Muslims are only very
very slightly better !. You moan about Brahmin
priestacracy , yet the Sikhs are much more dependent on
their priests who issue fatwas , take over holy places ..
Of course you are going to compare yourself with UP and
Biharis the most exploited areas under the Mughals and
Brits but if you compare with fellow Punjabis - Hindus ,
Muslim Shias , Sikhs are doing far worse . Has a Sardarji
ever won a Nobel prize ?
Only when they give up this only one God nonsense will they
start to make progress.
Mo
>In America it is very expensive to holdland without using it.
I have known of people who sold mansions and estates to
avoid paying property taxes. As a result they sold it to
Wagner<
Sardars wont pay any tax in India -that is the basic problem
and the tax inspectors in Punjab are too terrified to go
into the villages and get it from them . There are no
feudals in India anyway because of the land ceiling act
which should be revised upwards to at least 200 acres.
Any more and the village life will break down due to
depopulation as it has in Canada.
michelle
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 05:32:37 GMT, 11305...@compuserve.com (Mo)
wrote:
YES,Khurana won a nobel prize in medicine and was Sikh.
michelle singh
J Raza
Haroon H. Dogar wrote:
> Every tribe thinks their own tribe higher than any other tribe. Trust me. :-)
I know that. But what counts at the end of the day is social and
economic power.
And we all know which caste has that, in Punjab at least.
> Such is (unfortunately) life.
Such is Pakistan. The world progresses, but our Pakistan regresses.
> There is nothing wrong with being proud of who and what you are but
> there is everything wrong with denigrating others because of who or
> what they are or with disliking other because of their tribe or
> their station or their ethnic background or their language or their
> education
Such is the miserable state of Pakistani society that it is almost
impossible not to get drawn into ethnic, caste, or provincial rivalries.
>... Even where it does count, one's character, aqeeda, imaan,
> don't hate the man or woman, hate the action.
Is that practical?
BTW, I really liked your recent `Dada-jaan' post.
regards,
Jamil
Devadatta Mukutmoni
In article <6d9eiq$igj$1...@eros.clara.net> 11305...@compuserve.com (Mo) writes:> No he wasnt . Madan Lal Khurana is a Hindu name.
>
Further evidence that Mo is very stupid.
It is Hargovind Singh Khorana, you dummy.
He is definitely not sikh. He is a rajput.
Kabila Singh Khilaree DhumdhumaVala
Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
>
> Meanwhile a lower middle-class urban house owned by an OC clerk
> is worth more that 20 acres of land in rural India. How about
> practicing 'true socialism" (as opposed to "Kirar socialism")
> and getting the dalit urban poor to move into spare rooms
> of urban houses? Start with Bombay, Delhi, Madras, and
> Calcutta
>
> Also, how about imposing ceilings (1) on how many hattis, dukans,
> businesses, and factories Banias/Lalas could own - and distributing
> the surplus to the poor Dalits. Also give them 80% of the
> manager-level positions in the beaurocracy and state-run industries
> (90% of whom are held by 7% Brahmanists). And let them also have
> the same proportion of licenses/permits to start-up their own businesses
> and invest in growing industries/sectors.
>
> But if all this was to happen, then supremacist Brahmanists would
> not be able to corner the largest chunk of the wealth/income/rishwat
> generated in the Indian economy and keep on blaming the poverty created by
> the Casteocracy's policies on those nonexisten big bad "feudal lords"!
>
> The real enemy of the Indian masses, poverty, and economic growth
> is the criminal, corrupt, centralized, and rent-seeking Casteocracy set up
> by hegemonic and supremacist Brahmanists after 1947.
Some interesting thoughts here Gurupdesh.
Kabila Singh Khilaree DhumdhumaVala
Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
>
> Mo wrote:
> >
> > So what ? Just as Dalit Sikhs, Khatri Sikhs, Jat Sikhs ..all
> > today consider themselves Sikhs whatever their racial
> > origins , so Rajput Hindus , Jat Hindus ( and there are more
> > than Jat Sikhs) , Dalit Hindus .. all consider themselves
> > equal Hindus today .
>
And you told you that, you silly bum.
Mo
Amitabh Hajela
J Raza wrote:
> Brijnandan Singh Dehiya wrote:
>
> > Rigveda calls them Jaat, but they are knows by various versions of the word.
>
> I don't think Punjabi Jatts and Hindustani Jaats can be regarded as
> being one community. There may be a common descent, but that is now so
> far in the past as to be meaningless.
Why do you think so? I think the only difference may be one of language (Punjabi
vs. Hindi), and religion (Muslim and Sikh vs. Hindu). Otherwise, physically you
can't tell them apart, and attitude wise, all are known for similar triats of
aggression, combativeness, etc. All make good farmers and soldiers, and
traditionally considered no other career to be as honorable.
Jatt and Jaat are two different pronunciations of the same word; it's simply a
linguistic difference between Punjabi and Hindi. You can find this in many
examples when you compare the two languages, like hatth/haath (hand), ajj/aaj
(today), agg/aag (fire), nakk/naak (nose), kann/kaan (ear), akkh/aankh (eye),
kamm/kaam (work), dand/daant (tooth), gaddi/gaadi (car), sass/saas (mother-in-law),
vich/beech (in/between), and of course, jatt/jaat. In every case, the Punjabi
pronunciation of the word has a short vowel, and usually an emphasized "double
consonant" at the end, whereas the Hindi pronunciation has a long vowel and no
stressed consonant. But in each case, the word and the meaning of the word is
exactly the same.
Mo
On 28 Feb 1998 21:13:14 -0500, mu...@panix.com (Devadatta Mukutmoni)
wrote:>Further evidence that Mo is very stupid.
It is Hargovind Singh Khorana, you dummy.
He is definitely not sikh. He is a rajput.<
I did not say he was Sikh ! What I was trying to point out
that in an equivalent position monotheists do much worse than
secular/ploytheists as monotheists deliberately restrict there vision.
There has never been a Muslm Nobel prize winner either .
That may be unfair as not many have won the Nobel Prize but
what about other fields ? Sikhs are supposed to be martial and one can
excuse them not getting to the top in the Navy -there is no water
around Punjab , but has a Sikh ever risen to the top in the army ? air
force ?
Nijjhar, Rajinder
What tribe are you Ahmed? There is nothing as Rajputs as Raja has a Parja
and not sons, PUTS. Well off Jats were called Rajputs by Brahmins for the
sake of favours in greed.
--
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar, M.Sc.
Mussallmaan of Pir Nanak Shah,
A Jat of the Greater United Panjab
Retired Senior Lecturer in Metallurgy,
Gnostics are the living christs (satgurus) and NOT Christians, of Living
Allah (Spirit),
http://www.saqnet.co.uk/users/cheapflights/index.htm
http://www.saqnet.co.uk/users/cheapflight/gnostic.htm
Ishfaq Ahmed <ahme...@news.uidaho.edu> wrote in article
<6d4doe$emq$2...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>...
J Raza
Amitabh Hajela wrote:
> > I don't think Punjabi Jatts and Hindustani Jaats can be regarded as
> > being one community. There may be a common descent, but that is now so
> > far in the past as to be meaningless.
>
> Why do you think so? I think the only difference may be one of language (Punjabi
> vs. Hindi), and religion (Muslim and Sikh vs. Hindu).
Not just a difference of language and religion, but also of culture and
identity. The Punjabi Jatt community is hardly even aware of the
existence of Hindustani Jaats.
> Otherwise, physically you
> can't tell them apart, and attitude wise, all are known for similar triats of
> aggression, combativeness, etc. All make good farmers and soldiers, and
> traditionally considered no other career to be as honorable.
That proves nothing. The same traits are shared by other castes/ethnic
groups, for instance Gujjars, Awans, Rajputs, Sudhans and Maldials.
> Jatt and Jaat are two different pronunciations of the same word; it's simply a
> linguistic difference between Punjabi and Hindi. You can find this in many
> examples when you compare the two languages, like hatth/haath (hand), ajj/aaj
> (today), agg/aag (fire), nakk/naak (nose), kann/kaan (ear), akkh/aankh (eye),
> kamm/kaam (work), dand/daant (tooth), gaddi/gaadi (car), sass/saas (mother-in-law),
> vich/beech (in/between), and of course, jatt/jaat. In every case, the Punjabi
> pronunciation of the word has a short vowel, and usually an emphasized "double
> consonant" at the end, whereas the Hindi pronunciation has a long vowel and no
> stressed consonant.
Thats an interesting point, but the differences between the two groups
are greater than just the name.
> But in each case, the word and the meaning of the word is
> exactly the same.
I can't agree with that. I don't think that very many Jatts would feel
much of an ethnic affinity for Jaats. The few Jatts who are aware of
the existence of Jaats regard them as weak and submisssive, because they
play a subservient role to Rajputs. Rightly or wrongly, Jatts have a
high opinion of themselves and can't imagine their own being dominated
by the Brahmin's personal police force.
regards,
Jamil
Anis K Kamalani
J Raza wrote:
>
> Naeem wrote:
> >
> > In article <34F5C8...@sun.nospam.leeds.ac.uk>, ee...@sun.nospam.leeds.ac.uk (J Raza) wrote:
> > >Ishfaq Ahmed wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > > The main (Muslim) Rajput tribes of the Punjab are: Bhatti, Punwar,
> > > Chauhan,
> > >> > > Minhas, Tiwana, Noon, Chib, Gheba, Jodhra, Janjua, Sial and Wattu etc.
> > >>
> > >> Aren't Bhatti and Chuhan, among Gujjar tribes?
> > >>
> > >> Ishfaq
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > -- is one a higher caste than the other ?
> >
>
> Bhattis and Chauhans are not castes as such, they are tribes of the
> Rajput caste, or if you like, subcastes of the Rajput caste. As for one
> being higher than the other, I don't think so, but Bhattis are a far
> more numerous and influential tribe in Pakistan than Chauhaans.
>
> regards,
>
> Jamil
>
Are these chauhans are descendents of Pritiviraj Chauhan? I read that
the defeated Chauhan and his tribe was forcibly converted to Islam by
the victors.
Gurupdesh Singh
Jamil, your brush may be slightly broad on the Jaats.
Jatts are distributed in the Punjab (geographical)
the Jaats are distributed in south Haryana, western UP and
northern Rajasthan. They do not go deep into "Hindusthan"
and the majority of Jaats are confined to northwest
India - although a few can be found in eastern UP and Bihar.
Only in some of the fringe regions (where Jat and Rajput
tracts join) did the traditional "domination nonsense"
go on - but it went both ways depending on the region.
They was no universal rule.
Neo-Brahmanist historians, for their own self-serving agenda,
tend to promote that Rajputs (even though they are ethnically
derived from Jats/Gujars post 9-10th century - as discussed
before) but historical realities are somewhat different. Most
of the Jaats of Haryana, Western UP (e.g. Agra), and north
Rajasthan had their own villages/thoks/lands and were never
under Rajput control. Moreover, they continued to give frequent
resistance and revolts to Moguls even during the times of
Akbar, Shah Jahan, and Aurengzeb. Whenever
there was a wiff of news that the Moguls were weak (e.g.
succession) they would try to set-up their own independent
kingdoms.
For the most part, Moguls were happy to leave them alone as
long as they paid them the yearly Rakhi (tribute) and usually
an expedition was required to even extract this. Some of the
first anti-Mogul agrarian revolts preceding the Mogul demise
to take place occured in the Jaat tracts of northern Rajasthan
and western UP during the late 17th century. In fact, it is
quite amazing that being right next to the Mogul capital, they
managed to hold out with so much independence (and
without joining Moguls as many Rajputs from UP and south
Rajasthan - e.g. Jaipur, Jasalmair, Awadh - tended to do).
By the mid-18th century, strong Jaat states (Dohlpur,
Bharatpur, Bhawalpur) had emerged in western UP
and northern Rajasthan. When the revolts
spread northward (1710s) to south Punjab, Jaats here
typically joined the Khalsa as formal converts or just
joined "as-is". For anyone having the balls,
it was a good time for plunder and to get more land from
the losing Moguls/Afghans holed-up around the bigger
towns/cities (e.g. Sirhand, Samana).
The Jaat state of Dohlpur (Agra region of north Rajasthan)
according to British sources was second only to Lahore and had
a well trained "Europeanized" army of 75,000 men. The most
noteworthy Maharajas of Dohlpur state were Jawahir Singh
and Suraj Mal. The latter was a contemporary of Ranjit Singh
and both had very friendly political relations. They even
held joint exercises and had treaties - which were not liked
very much by the Brits.
The Jaats who had their independent states prior
to annexation got screwed just like the Sikhs.
Their separate Princely states joined the Indian
Union under a ton of Congress promises and wanted
a combined Jaat state formed out of their territories
in Western UP and north Rajasthan. But the Brahmanist
Kirars of the Congress (none of whom had rule/land in
any region of southasia prior to British Raj) did a
royal job on them also. Nehru and his Brahmanists reneged
on both the Punjabi Suba and the Jaat state -
promises these territories into the Indian Union.
Their territory were annexed by Brahmanists to
i) the United Provinces and renamed "Uttar Pradesh" and
ii) to the British Rajputanna (much smaller) and given
the catchy name "Rajasthan".
Most people associate Rajasthan with lands where Rajputs
dominated, but northern and eastern Rajasthan has always
been under Jaat control. Ditto for Western UP. The Maratha
tribes (also Scythic in origin) ruled south Rajasthan from
northern Maharastra (post 1715) until the Brits broke their
empire in the 1830s).
The Brits then took them out from Maratha domination and
created a "Rajputanna" province for them. As mentioned
above, Brahmanists added Jaat territory to it in 1947 and
created a larger province of Rajasthan.
Brahmanist historians and history books like to fantasize
about Rajputs as being their true warriors and dont mind
twisting facts to history to create this illusion of
"warriors of Hindusthan". Rajputs, on the other hand,
themselves never showed so much respect to their Brahmins
as the latter like to claim - many clans slaughtered cows
to pay homage to their ancestors or after winning a good
battle (these were ancient Scythic/Hun customs). Jaats on
the otherhand were more respectful to cows!
Gurupdesh Singh
michelle wrote:
> families also give thei children hindu names.A good friend Mohan is
> also seikh though this name refers to Krishna
> Michelle Singh
Michelle, thats typical communal-to-the-bone Brahmanist
(e.g. Brahmins/Banias - 7%) behavior for you. In the entire,
north west subcontinent (Ganga to Indus), they cannot give
the name of and date one Raj-dhani/administration/army
controlled by Brahmanists over the MahaPunjab
regions 3500 years of known. Yet they fancy themselves
in their quack fantasy history books as the "highest castes".
According to Brahmanist historians, those who ruled,
governed, ran/constituted armies, owned-land, cultivated
are "lower castes", "mlechhas", "shudras" while Brahmins
who sat under a banyan tree all day swatting flies and reading
palms, and then in the evening picked up their batta to
go knocking for food on the doors of people who made an
honest living are the "HIGHEST CASTE"!
The reality is that according to the Scythic cultural-social
values of the northwest, the professions that were
considered the most honorable/noble were zamindari and soldiering.
A traditional Jat/Rajput/Gujjar/Tarkhan/Lohar would have committed
suicide before taking up the hut!
Only in a Casteocracy, this ridiculous crap passes
for "history" and "social science". Brahmanist
intellectuals/academics attempt to supress
real history and social science so their hegemonic
and supremacist post 19th century fanstasies dreamed
-up by the likes of Dayanada, Vivekananda, RSS, BJP,
can fly.
Saurabh Jang
Amitabh Hajela (aha...@eclipse.net) wrote:
: Why do you think so? I think the only difference may be one of language (Punjabi
: vs. Hindi), and religion (Muslim and Sikh vs. Hindu). Otherwise, physically you
: can't tell them apart, and attitude wise, all are known for similar triats of
: aggression, combativeness, etc. All make good farmers and soldiers, and
: traditionally considered no other career to be as honorable.
I am a myself a Hindu Jat with family origins in UP and do not agree that
"physically you can not tell them apart". Fact is just like many other
castes, Jats have often as much physical diversity amongst themselves
as they do in comparision to other catse groups. Amongst Jats you
will find tall, short, weak, strong, fair, dark individuals with a lot
of variation amongst the physical characterisitcs that supposedly
make up an ethnic group or race. Of course most of my experience is with
Jats from Western UP, but based on my limited experience with folks from
Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan, that seems to be the case for Jats over
there also. Caste as an ethnic grouping criteria in my opinion is flawed,
not just for Jats, but for most castes.
I have brought this to the attention of the Gurupdesh Singhs of this world,
but folks like him persist in the pursuit of a mythic "Indo-Scythic" sthan.
Of course, if he were more honest, he would admit that he cares just
for Khalisthan, but that has a much more limited appeal, so he is
fine tuning his rhetoric to make it better suited to the ground realities.
Saurabh
--
Saurabh Jang, Senior Software Engineer, Motorola Inc. ja...@eis.comm.mot.com
Gurupdesh Singh
Saurabh Jang wrote:
>
> Amitabh Hajela (aha...@eclipse.net) wrote:
> : Why do you think so? I think the only difference may be one of language (Punjabi
> : vs. Hindi), and religion (Muslim and Sikh vs. Hindu). Otherwise, physically you
> : can't tell them apart, and attitude wise, all are known for similar triats of
> : aggression, combativeness, etc. All make good farmers and soldiers, and
> : traditionally considered no other career to be as honorable.
> :
>
> I am a myself a Hindu Jat with family origins in UP and do not agree that
> "physically you can not tell them apart". Fact is just like many other
> castes, Jats have often as much physical diversity amongst themselves
> as they do in comparision to other catse groups. Amongst Jats you
> will find tall, short, weak, strong, fair, dark individuals with a lot
You have played this drum before.
> of variation amongst the physical characterisitcs that supposedly
You are truly very observant. Can you tell the difference between
an Englishman and a German. I sure as hell cant.
> make up an ethnic group or race. Of course most of my experience is with
> Jats from Western UP, but based on my limited experience with folks from
> Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan, that seems to be the case for Jats over
> there also. Caste as an ethnic grouping criteria in my opinion is flawed,
> not just for Jats, but for most castes.
Well I didnt invent the caste system. So dont complain to me.
Write a letter to Manu or that dasu Vijaypee. Have you raised this
issue before with your lovable superior Brahmins, or do you just get
upset about these matters when a non-Bahman talks about caste issues?
>
> I have brought this to the attention of the Gurupdesh Singhs of this world,
> but folks like him persist in the pursuit of a mythic "Indo-Scythic" sthan.
The only folks I know who are in pursuit of a mythic
nation is Brahmanist and their chellas (like you)
trying to invent their fantasy 10 thousand year old
political ONE "Hindusthan"
(a curse from uncle Ghori of the 12th century).
I suppose the Gandharan civilization (400BC - 900AD)
of the northwest spawed by Indo-Scythians and their
descendents was a "MYTHIC INDO-SCYTHICSTHAN".
The coins, archeology, and ancient manuscripts
from which all this history is known must be
all myths - right!
And "realist" Brahmcharis like you probably like to
get their "history" from Brahmin cock-and-bull
stories (and BJP phamplets) in which monkeys, animals, and
imaginary devtas shape human events and history.
I and many others dont.
Regards,
Gurupdesh
J
Raghu,
There is a complete industry out there, manned by people like Mr
Gurupdesh Singh, whose only purpose in life is to wallow in these
flights of fancy in a world that exists only in their minds. This
industry consists of books , magazines , video and audio tapes, even TV
programs and other hate propaganda materials read mostly by hard working
sikh NRIs. These trusting souls tend to believe the worst about Punjab
and India. Gurupdesh and his ilk have cleverly played on the fears and
hopes of the NRI Sikh community and sold them a bag of goods. Millions
of dollars are collected every year in the name of the 'panth' and
millions of dollars of profits are made through sales of the junk that
these guys produce. A very large part of this money went to funding
terrorist activity in Punjab in the first few years after operation
Bluestar. This went to its logical extreme with the blowing up of the AI
flight and caused outrage even amongst some of the khalistanis. The
khalistan fever has come down among Sikh NRIs but and has left a lot of
people who made their living in this industry on the limb. Folks like
Gurupdesh are just the left over dregs of a once thriving industry.
Ergo, let him be.
J.
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
> Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : (e.g. Brahmins/Banias - 7%) behavior for you. In the entire,
> : north west subcontinent (Ganga to Indus), they cannot give
> : the name of and date one Raj-dhani/administration/army
> : controlled by Brahmanists over the MahaPunjab
> : regions 3500 years of known. Yet they fancy themselves
> : in their quack fantasy history books as the "highest castes".
>
> Poor Gurupdesh ! He doesn't seem to know
> the most elementary thing about the caste
> sytem, yet proceeds to write hundreds of posts
> on it :-)
>
> Brahmins were not supposed to exercise political
> power, so naturally there are no administrations
> controlled by Brahmins ! Is this a great
> revelation :-)
>
> In fact, if some Brahmin held kingship, he wouldn't
> be a Brahmin. This is precisely WHY they fancied
> themselves the highest caste. Gurupdesh,
> a creature of modern materialism, where power
> equals status, can NEVER grasp the assumptions
> of the old caste system.
>
> It is comical to see this guy explain the
> caste system to others :-)
>
> : According to Brahmanist historians, those who ruled,
> : governed, ran/constituted armies, owned-land, cultivated
> : are "lower castes", "mlechhas", "shudras" while Brahmins
> : who sat under a banyan tree all day swatting flies and reading
> : palms, and then in the evening picked up their batta to
> : go knocking for food on the doors of people who made an
> : honest living are the "HIGHEST CASTE"!
>
> Precisely ! Those "Brahmanist" ( what does the
> ist mean ? why not simply say Brahmin ?) historians
> knew a lot more about the caste system than
> Gurupdesh can ever hope to know !
>
> : The reality is that according to the Scythic cultural-social
> : values of the northwest, the professions that were
> : considered the most honorable/noble were zamindari and soldiering.
> : A traditional Jat/Rajput/Gujjar/Tarkhan/Lohar would have committed
> : suicide before taking up the hut!
>
> This is ALSO part of the caste-system mentality,
> it is not different from it. To praise this
> mentality and to pretend to be against the
> caste-system is a joke :-)
>
> This is like criticizing the British class
> system and then adding " We Dukes in southern
> England would never talk with niggers" :-)
>
> You may pretend to be "above" the caste system,
> but your sneering words give you away as
> a follower of the same system !
>
> : Only in a Casteocracy, this ridiculous crap passes
> : for "history" and "social science". Brahmanist
> : intellectuals/academics attempt to supress
> : real history and social science so their hegemonic
> : and supremacist post 19th century fanstasies dreamed
> : -up by the likes of Dayanada, Vivekananda, RSS, BJP,
> : can fly.
>
> No one is a bigger supporter of the feudal
> outlook than Gurupdesh ! It is comical to see
> this medievalist look down upon others,
> especially men like Vivekananda who were
> authentic critics of the caste system.
>
> To criticize anything requires correct
> understanding of the subject. Lacking the wit
> to understand it, Gurupdesh comes across
> as a clown.
>
> RS
Saurabh Jang
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: You are truly very observant. Can you tell the difference between
: an Englishman and a German. I sure as hell cant.
Why should you be able to tell the difference between an Englishman and
German? Both of these countries have a majority of Germanic tribes going by
ethnic classifications commonly in use.
Why don't you simply look at your family members, cousins etc. to see that
Jats have a great deal of "diversity" amongst themselves? Do all members
of your family have the same complexion? Do they have similar bone structure
and size? By "family" I mean your extended family of course, mama, mami,
chachi, chachi, phupha phuphi, their offspring, etc.
Similarly you can see members from other castes, even your most
hated caste, Brahmins, who exhibit a great deal of diversity. Many
Brahmins will be fair, while at the same time many will be
as black as the blackest African. Even if they might be from the
same "Gotras" in the same region. Even "Gotra" is flawed since I
believe some Brahmins have to marry in the same Gotra, whereas
Hindu Jats at least do not marry in the same Gotra.
If you do not agree that Jats have a lot of physical diversity amongst
themselves just go to your favourite Jat dominated village/town in India and
have a look for your self.
: Well I didnt invent the caste system. So dont complain to me.
: Write a letter to Manu or that dasu Vijaypee. Have you raised this
: issue before with your lovable superior Brahmins, or do you just get
: upset about these matters when a non-Bahman talks about caste issues?
You are so illogical that your favourite tactic is of calling every
non-Punjabi a "Dasu", while you claim that Punjabis are the "real"
Aryans. Of course since we all know that the Indo-Scythians came
into India way after the Vedas were written, I wonder how you
reconcile that with your claim that only "Punjabis" are "Aryans".
Why don't you apply the term "Dasu" to us Jats then? Or do you have
some divine knowledge that Mr. Vajpayee is descended from the
"Dasus" described in the Rig Veda?
: The only folks I know who are in pursuit of a mythic
: nation is Brahmanist and their chellas (like you)
: trying to invent their fantasy 10 thousand year old
: political ONE "Hindusthan"
If transplanted Khalistanis sitting in Cornell who probably haven't
visited India in a zillion years are not in pursuit of a myth,
I don't know who is!
Gurupdesh Singh
Saurabh Jang wrote:
>
> Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : You are truly very observant. Can you tell the difference between
> : an Englishman and a German. I sure as hell cant.
>
> Why should you be able to tell the difference between an Englishman and
> German? Both of these countries have a majority of Germanic tribes going by
> ethnic classifications commonly in use.
>
> Why don't you simply look at your family members, cousins etc. to see that
> Jats have a great deal of "diversity" amongst themselves? Do all members
> of your family have the same complexion? Do they have similar bone structure
> and size? By "family" I mean your extended family of course, mama, mami,
> chachi, chachi, phupha phuphi, their offspring, etc.
Yes, we all have the same complexion - kala, chita, gora.
>
> Similarly you can see members from other castes, even your most
> hated caste, Brahmins, who exhibit a great deal of diversity. Many
> Brahmins will be fair, while at the same time many will be
> as black as the blackest African. Even if they might be from the
Hey, if you are trying to convince me that Brahmin origins are
Dravidic, you are talking to a convert. I will be happy to
put up the DOB theory if you want me to prove my faith.
I should add that I personally view peoples of all colors, races,
creeds without any prejudice - lest I be labeled a "Racist"
by some Hitler-loving Brahmanoid.
> same "Gotras" in the same region. Even "Gotra" is flawed since I
> believe some Brahmins have to marry in the same Gotra, whereas
> Hindu Jats at least do not marry in the same Gotra.
Hell man - even life is flawed!
Gotra di mah tah vajni-hi-aah.
>
> If you do not agree that Jats have a lot of physical diversity amongst
> themselves just go to your favourite Jat dominated village/town in India and
> have a look for your self.
You are stuck-up on this diversity business.
I agree with you - every Jat is not 6'2'' and does
not look like Dharminder or Dara Singh.
Now, can we move on . . . please.
>
> : Well I didnt invent the caste system. So dont complain to me.
> : Write a letter to Manu or that dasu Vijaypee. Have you raised this
> : issue before with your lovable superior Brahmins, or do you just get
> : upset about these matters when a non-Bahman talks about caste issues?
>
> You are so illogical that your favourite tactic is of calling every
> non-Punjabi a "Dasu", while you claim that Punjabis are the "real"
> Aryans. Of course since we all know that the Indo-Scythians came
> into India way after the Vedas were written, I wonder how you
> reconcile that with your claim that only "Punjabis" are "Aryans".
The Chamaars of Punjab can be the Aryans for all I care!
> Why don't you apply the term "Dasu" to us Jats then? Or do you have
> some divine knowledge that Mr. Vajpayee is descended from the
> "Dasus" described in the Rig Veda?
That one I am sure of - I checked his gums. Must be
tough for a Surma like Advani to hang around with that
"Super-Aryan".
By the way, why do you think that Dasus are inferior to
so-called Aryans. They built better cities than those
Aryan drunkards of the RigVeda. Although they did
better Bhangra it seems from the hyms.
I hope you Jats in UP havent given that up. I cant
imagine a Jat doing Bharat-Natyam, regardless of
how "diverse" he is.
>
> : The only folks I know who are in pursuit of a mythic
> : nation is Brahmanist and their chellas (like you)
> : trying to invent their fantasy 10 thousand year old
> : political ONE "Hindusthan"
>
> If transplanted Khalistanis sitting in Cornell who probably haven't
> visited India in a zillion years are not in pursuit of a myth,
> I don't know who is!
>
> Saurabh
Saurabh-ji, annah gusa mut khao. I would love to visit
our Jat brothers in western UP and Rajasthan and exchange some
vichar/tandhra with them. I will definitely do so the next time
I visit the Scythian provinces (Saka-sthan) of the northwest.
Those Brahmanoids cant separate blood no matter how hard they try.
Haryanvi-Punjabi Zindabad!
Gurupdesh Singh
> : north west subcontinent (Ganga to Indus), they cannot give
> : the name of and date one Raj-dhani/administration/army
> : controlled by Brahmanists over the MahaPunjab
> : regions 3500 years of known. Yet they fancy themselves
> : in their quack fantasy history books as the "highest castes".
>
> Poor Gurupdesh ! He doesn't seem to know
> the most elementary thing about the caste
> sytem, yet proceeds to write hundreds of posts
> on it :-)
This is what Brahmins keep telling their "inferior"
dalits (80% of Hindus) when they ask about the Caste
System - "you just dont understand it" !
It will take another 84,000 janams really
understand it - right!
>
> Brahmins were not supposed to exercise political
> power, so naturally there are no administrations
> controlled by Brahmins ! Is this a great
> revelation :-)
Then how do you explain Brahmins being Kings in their
story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta) where they
fight armies of well-trained monkeys. Obviously,
they fancied being Rajas. Problem was there were
some armies around not made-up of monkeys.
However, when they did get the opportunity to get
political power (like 1947) they grabbed it
- and havent let go since!
Here is a tally of Brahmins Kings in Punjab:
Period Number of Brahmin Kings
------ ------------------------
1500 BC - 1847 AD 0
1947 - present 5
What happened to "Brahmins were not supposed to
excercise power"?
>
> In fact, if some Brahmin held kingship, he wouldn't
> be a Brahmin. This is precisely WHY they fancied
Counterexample: Ravan was a King and is refered to as a Brahmin
in the Ramayana.
Manu from the autonomous gangetic region and
the Puranic texts forbade Brahmins from going to Punjab.
Could it be that the foreign priests were not welcome
in Vedic lands (Saptha Sindhva) - much less become Kings
there in earlier times?
> themselves the highest caste. Gurupdesh,
> a creature of modern materialism, where power
> equals status, can NEVER grasp the assumptions
> of the old caste system.
Really!!!! Brahmins were always non-materialist!
Another example of maha-phoodoo logic and common sense
and understanding of the social sciences and human nature
by "highly educated" neo-Brahmanists.
>
> It is comical to see this guy explain the
> caste system to others :-)
>
> : According to Brahmanist historians, those who ruled,
> : governed, ran/constituted armies, owned-land, cultivated
> : are "lower castes", "mlechhas", "shudras" while Brahmins
> : who sat under a banyan tree all day swatting flies and reading
> : palms, and then in the evening picked up their batta to
> : go knocking for food on the doors of people who made an
> : honest living are the "HIGHEST CASTE"!
>
> Precisely ! Those "Brahmanist" ( what does the
> ist mean ? why not simply say Brahmin ?) historians
> knew a lot more about the caste system than
> Gurupdesh can ever hope to know !
You are completely unintelligable here.
Brahmanist historians tend to conceal the social/political
realities under which Brahmins truly lived - especially
in the northwest where the dominant culture and order was
Scythic. So, they replace the uncomfortable realities
not conducive to their supremacist and hegemonic agenda
and replace TRUE HISTORY with goog-o-li-gook from supposedly
"ancient shastras" (none of which historically pre-date
the 11th century AD).
Historical events and social/political hierarchies are
constructed over time and space. Brahmanist hegemonic
dreaming require knowledge of neither. All it requires
is a few monkeys, elephant heads, devtas and a lot of
"creative" imagination!
>
> : The reality is that according to the Scythic cultural-social
> : values of the northwest, the professions that were
> : considered the most honorable/noble were zamindari and soldiering.
> : A traditional Jat/Rajput/Gujjar/Tarkhan/Lohar would have committed
> : suicide before taking up the hut!
>
> This is ALSO part of the caste-system mentality,
> it is not different from it. To praise this
> mentality and to pretend to be against the
> caste-system is a joke :-)
Well this is not the Brahmanical caste system.
Its the Scythian social order - much more
humane than pouring lead in the ears of dalits,
dont you agree?
Why does it upset you to know that bigger sharks
swam in the oceans of the northwest?
>
> This is like criticizing the British class
> system and then adding " We Dukes in southern
> England would never talk with niggers" :-)
The problem is that there never was any
Brahmanical domination in the northwest.
We are objecting to Brahmanists from
Gangaland/Bengal pretending that they
were the Sirs here throughout our history.
Comprende!
The Punjab region was united to the rest of
southasia politically for less than 10%
of its 3300 years known history prior to
annexation in 1847 - even the 10% "togethorness"
occured under Scytho-Buddhist regimes and
Muslim regimes. Main religio-historical periods
of MahaPunjab:
1) Vedic Period of Saptha Sindhva (1500BC-500BC)
2) Gandharan Buddhist (400BC - 900AD)
3) Post Buddhist (post 900 AD): Influx of
Tamilian Brahmanism (started by Shankarcharya
from Tamil Nadu) and Islam. Local development
of Punjabi Sufism and Sikhism which are threads
of continuity to the humanistic and tolerant
spiritual traditions of ancient Gandhara.
>
> You may pretend to be "above" the caste system,
> but your sneering words give you away as
> a follower of the same system !
As mentioned again our social system, culture, ethnicity,
etc. is not the same as those of Brahmanists from eastern and
southern subcontinent. You are flying the imaginary and fantasy
"ONE HINDU NATION" nation kite dreamed up first by hegemonic
Bengali/Poorbias idealogues and organizations like
Vivekananda/Dayananda/RSS/BJP/etc in the 19th century.
These fellows were attempting to launch their own supremacist
and imperial ambitions during British Raj.
>
> : Only in a Casteocracy, this ridiculous crap passes
> : for "history" and "social science". Brahmanist
> : intellectuals/academics attempt to supress
> : real history and social science so their hegemonic
> : and supremacist post 19th century fanstasies dreamed
> : -up by the likes of Dayanada, Vivekananda, RSS, BJP,
> : can fly.
>
> No one is a bigger supporter of the feudal
> outlook than Gurupdesh ! It is comical to see
> this medievalist look down upon others,
Not that again. Armchair leftist neo-Brahmanists
perpetually going after their non-existent feudal
lords. A home owned by the lower rung of
Brahmanists exceeds in the net-worth the 18 acres
owned by "feudal lords" in India. How about
putting up Dalits in the spare rooms of urban
houses. Also impose a ceiling on the number (1) of
shops, businesses, and factories OCs can own
and distribute the rest to poor Dalits. Also
give them 80% of the managerial positions in the
huge state-run industrial sector and Indian beaurocracy
(90% of these rent-seeking positions are held by 7%
Brahmanist).
The real pests of the Indian people are
supremacist Brahmanists (7%) who have been plundering and
milking Bharatvarsha bone dry for the past 50 years through
their stranglehold on the beaurocratic and political system
and the economy through the "license and permit Raj".
The Nadir-shahs and Ghaznavis have been spinning in their
graves watching the rapacious Brahmanists devouring the
carcass of Bharatvarsh!
Soon they will have to start creating "feudal lords"
to keep that dhandha going.
> especially men like Vivekananda who were
> authentic critics of the caste system.
Really, how many dalits go to Vivekananda schools
and ashrams ?
The proletariat of hegemonic and supremacist
Brahmanists!
Gurupdesh Singh
J wrote:
>
> Raghu,
>
> There is a complete industry out there, manned by people like Mr
> Gurupdesh Singh, whose only purpose in life is to wallow in these
> flights of fancy in a world that exists only in their minds. This
> industry consists of books , magazines , video and audio tapes, even TV
> programs and other hate propaganda materials read mostly by hard working
> sikh NRIs. These trusting souls tend to believe the worst about Punjab
> and India. Gurupdesh and his ilk have cleverly played on the fears and
> hopes of the NRI Sikh community and sold them a bag of goods. Millions
> of dollars are collected every year in the name of the 'panth' and
> millions of dollars of profits are made through sales of the junk that
> these guys produce. A very large part of this money went to funding
> terrorist activity in Punjab in the first few years after operation
> Bluestar. This went to its logical extreme with the blowing up of the AI
> flight and caused outrage even amongst some of the khalistanis. The
> khalistan fever has come down among Sikh NRIs but and has left a lot
Aaoo aaoo aaoo, Jaishree-ji. Thuwada kih hal-chal heh.
Thwadeh wargi sohni janani nuh politiks dae under nahi
time waste karnah chahidah.
Tushi bhul-gaye kae ISI deh bonus teh salary vih bohut
-hi-chunghi heh. Teh-fare, retirement vasteh Abbotabad
bohut-hi-sona makan mildah heh. Tusi menuh authae millan
jarur anaah. Assih donoh authae bohut skiing kara-geh.
Thuwada,
Ranja Ishik
of
> people who made their living in this industry on the limb. Folks like
> Gurupdesh are just the left over dregs of a once thriving industry.
> Ergo, let him be.
>
> J.
>
> Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
> > Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> > : (e.g. Brahmins/Banias - 7%) behavior for you. In the entire,
> > : north west subcontinent (Ganga to Indus), they cannot give
> > : the name of and date one Raj-dhani/administration/army
> > : controlled by Brahmanists over the MahaPunjab
> > : regions 3500 years of known. Yet they fancy themselves
> > : in their quack fantasy history books as the "highest castes".
> >
> > Poor Gurupdesh ! He doesn't seem to know
> > the most elementary thing about the caste
> > sytem, yet proceeds to write hundreds of posts
> > on it :-)
> >
> > Brahmins were not supposed to exercise political
> > power, so naturally there are no administrations
> > controlled by Brahmins ! Is this a great
> > revelation :-)
> >
> > In fact, if some Brahmin held kingship, he wouldn't
> > be a Brahmin. This is precisely WHY they fancied
> > themselves the highest caste. Gurupdesh,
> > a creature of modern materialism, where power
> > equals status, can NEVER grasp the assumptions
> > of the old caste system.
> >
> > It is comical to see this guy explain the
> > caste system to others :-)
> >
> > : According to Brahmanist historians, those who ruled,
> > : governed, ran/constituted armies, owned-land, cultivated
> > : are "lower castes", "mlechhas", "shudras" while Brahmins
> > : who sat under a banyan tree all day swatting flies and reading
> > : palms, and then in the evening picked up their batta to
> > : go knocking for food on the doors of people who made an
> > : honest living are the "HIGHEST CASTE"!
> >
> > Precisely ! Those "Brahmanist" ( what does the
> > ist mean ? why not simply say Brahmin ?) historians
> > knew a lot more about the caste system than
> > Gurupdesh can ever hope to know !
> >
> > : The reality is that according to the Scythic cultural-social
> > : values of the northwest, the professions that were
> > : considered the most honorable/noble were zamindari and soldiering.
> > : A traditional Jat/Rajput/Gujjar/Tarkhan/Lohar would have committed
> > : suicide before taking up the hut!
> >
> > This is ALSO part of the caste-system mentality,
> > it is not different from it. To praise this
> > mentality and to pretend to be against the
> > caste-system is a joke :-)
> >
> > This is like criticizing the British class
> > system and then adding " We Dukes in southern
> > England would never talk with niggers" :-)
> >
> > You may pretend to be "above" the caste system,
> > but your sneering words give you away as
> > a follower of the same system !
> >
> > : Only in a Casteocracy, this ridiculous crap passes
> > : for "history" and "social science". Brahmanist
> > : intellectuals/academics attempt to supress
> > : real history and social science so their hegemonic
> > : and supremacist post 19th century fanstasies dreamed
> > : -up by the likes of Dayanada, Vivekananda, RSS, BJP,
> > : can fly.
> >
> > No one is a bigger supporter of the feudal
> > outlook than Gurupdesh ! It is comical to see
> > this medievalist look down upon others,
> > especially men like Vivekananda who were
> > authentic critics of the caste system.
> >
Sridhar
Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
>
>
> Jamil, your brush may be slightly broad on the Jaats.
> Jatts are distributed in the Punjab (geographical)
> the Jaats are distributed in south Haryana, western UP and
> northern Rajasthan. They do not go deep into "Hindusthan"
> and the majority of Jaats are confined to northwest
> India - although a few can be found in eastern UP and Bihar.
>
south haryana, western u.p. and northern rajasthan while `gaddis' are
confined to god's own "pnjaab". ever tried getting a life?
Nitin Batra
>
> The reality is that according to the Scythic cultural-social
> values of the northwest, the professions that were
> considered the most honorable/noble were zamindari and soldiering.
I believe that was how, in theory, the dharma of a brahmin (was it always
by birth??) was considered higher than other dharmas because what is
honorable/noble or pleasure is satisfying only to a person in lower stage
of development, one still thick in illusions. It seems to me
no one could possibly know who is and who
isn't Brahmin-- no one REALLY knows how liberated versus attached any
other person is--- I highly doubt it is by family when I see such
apparently radical differences between people within a given family or
society-named caste. Perhaps God put each person at birth into a family
and series of
life experiences because that is where they left off from their previous
life in growth, in understanding process. I can hardly conceive of such
growth working if everyone you see is at the exact same stage of
development, so brothers are probably of different castes, isn't it?
> real history and social science so their hegemonic
> and supremacist post 19th century fanstasies dreamed
> -up by the likes of Dayanada, Vivekananda, RSS, BJP,
> can fly.
How so? how have any of these promoted brahmin supremacy? I literally do
not know, I am asking.
Raghu Seshadri
: The reality is that according to the Scythic cultural-social
: values of the northwest, the professions that were
: considered the most honorable/noble were zamindari and soldiering.
: A traditional Jat/Rajput/Gujjar/Tarkhan/Lohar would have committed
: suicide before taking up the hut!
This is ALSO part of the caste-system mentality,
it is not different from it. To praise this
mentality and to pretend to be against the
caste-system is a joke :-)
This is like criticizing the British class
system and then adding " We Dukes in southern
England would never talk with niggers" :-)
You may pretend to be "above" the caste system,
but your sneering words give you away as
a follower of the same system !
: Only in a Casteocracy, this ridiculous crap passes
: for "history" and "social science". Brahmanist
: intellectuals/academics attempt to supress
: real history and social science so their hegemonic
: and supremacist post 19th century fanstasies dreamed
: -up by the likes of Dayanada, Vivekananda, RSS, BJP,
: can fly.
No one is a bigger supporter of the feudal
Deepak Sahrawat
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
< rest deleted >
Just a few corrections to a mostly accurate history. The Jat
state that you refer to as Dholpur should be referred to as
the state of Bharatpur. At its pinnacle in the mid 1700s
during the rule of Jawahar Singh, the Jat empire extended
all the way from Aligarh and Bulandshahr in the east to
Mewar in the west and just north of Gwalior to Sonepat
just north of Delhi. All territories between the important
Moghal cities of Delhi and Agra were under Jat control.
In fact Maharaja Suraj Mal along with the Marathas rolled
into Delhi in the 18th century after defeating the wazir
of Delhi. The jats and marathas parted company shortly
after this due differences in opinion as to who should
be the new royal wazir. Just south of this jat state was
another Jat state Gohad ruled by a Jat rana.
Some furthur information about the history of the jats.
The rebellions of the Jats in this area started in the
1660s. In Tiplat, Gokla the chieftain of the jats had
started a jat rebellion to protest the unjust taxation of
Auragnzeb. The jats pretty much unofficially ruled the
area between Agra and Delhi even during this period and
would regularly conduct raids on royal caravans and loot
them. At the end of this period Aurangzeb had to lead an
army himself to subdue Gokla and he was later hanged
publicly with another associate. This furthur enraged the
jats and the successors of Gokla like Rajaram, Churaman,
Badan Singh rose to the challange and ultimately created
the powerful state of Bharatpur with nearly impregnable fortresses
at Bharatpur, Wair, Deeg etc. In fact during his second raid of
India, Ahmad Shah Abdali spent a few months on a seige of
Bharatpur but could not succeed and had to leave midway because
of mouting casualties of his troops due to disease.
Jats have always ruled in the areas of their residence.
During peace time they would plow their land, at times of
wat jats would leave their plows and take up their swords.
This has always been our tradition and remains so to this day.
My point here was to counter the nonsensical inneuendo that
hindu Jats are cowards with facts. Say that to the face of any
haryanvi jat and you can find out the answer yourself. Haryanvi
is the common language of all hindu Jats of haryana, delhi,
rajasthan and western UP. Jats along with Sikhs today form the
backbone of the Indian army. However having said all of this I
would point out that regardless of the close cooperation that
might have existed between hindu and sikh Jats a couple of
centuries ago, there is now a distance between the two communities
which cannot be denied. Both communities are happy in their own
spheres of influence and we should leave it at that.
About muslim Jats in the present day pakistan, I know very little.
I can point to a period in time in the 1920s and 1930s
when Chaudhry Chottu Ram had united the jats of all communites
in the punjab (which included the present day Haryana) to
form the government of Punjab.
Regards,
Deepak Sahrawat
Mo
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 11:01:27 -0500, Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu>
wrote:
> while Brahmins
who sat under a banyan tree all day swatting flies and reading
palms, and then in the evening picked up their batta to <
not done a stroke of productive work for the last 50 years must be a
Brahmin,.
Saurabh Jang
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: I should add that I personally view peoples of all colors, races,
: by some Hitler-loving Brahmanoid.
This is certainly not true if one goes by your postings. You consider
"Dasu" to be a racial epithet and are quite fond of using it. Your whole
concept of a "Indo-Scuthic"-sthan is based on a concept of shared
ethnicity.
: You are stuck-up on this diversity business.
: I agree with you - every Jat is not 6'2'' and does
: not look like Dharminder or Dara Singh.
: Now, can we move on . . . please.
Well if you agree that Jats are not a homogeneous ethnic group than what happens
to your theory behind "Indo-Scythic"-sthan?
: By the way, why do you think that Dasus are inferior to
: so-called Aryans. They built better cities than those
: Aryan drunkards of the RigVeda. Although they did
: better Bhangra it seems from the hyms.
I am not the one throwing "Dasu" around as a pejorative epithet. I do not even
know if such a group as the Dasus existed in reality. So there is certainly
no reason for me to believe that Dasus are inferior to Aryans, which in itself
is a rather vague and unscientific term.
: Saurabh-ji, annah gusa mut khao. I would love to visit
: our Jat brothers in western UP and Rajasthan and exchange some
: vichar/tandhra with them. I will definitely do so the next time
: I visit the Scythian provinces (Saka-sthan) of the northwest.
Please do. And be prepared to be greeted with blank and vacant stares when
you talk about "Indo-Scythic"-sthan.
: Those Brahmanoids cant separate blood no matter how hard they try.
Ethnicity doesn't matter to you according to you above in the post, and now
it does? Jats, or other such castes cannot be considered races or
homogeneous ethnic groups now though they might have been so many thousands
of years ago. As such, any separatist idea based on an assumed homogeneous
ethnic identity is illogical and at best a hypothetical construct of only
theoretical interest to armchair intellectuals like you.
Raghu Seshadri
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: > Poor Gurupdesh ! He doesn't seem to know
: > the most elementary thing about the caste
: > sytem, yet proceeds to write hundreds of posts
: > on it :-)
:
: This is what Brahmins keep telling their "inferior"
: dalits (80% of Hindus) when they ask about the Caste
: System - "you just dont understand it" !
: It will take another 84,000 janams really
: understand it - right!
Not at all. Dalits understand it just fine.
I was referring only to you, Gurupdesh. YOUR
understanding IS inferior. Do not pretend to be
a clever dalit. You are not.
: > Brahmins were not supposed to exercise political
: > power, so naturally there are no administrations
: > controlled by Brahmins ! Is this a great
: > revelation :-)
:
: Then how do you explain Brahmins being Kings in their
: story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta) where they
: fight armies of well-trained monkeys. Obviously,
: they fancied being Rajas. Problem was there were
: some armies around not made-up of monkeys.
What a fool you are, Gurupdesh. It is obvious
you have read neither the Ramayana nor the
Mahabharata. There is NO BRAHMIN KING in either
of these epics ! :-)
It is amazing that such an ignorant person
spends so much time writing loooooooooonnngggg
posts "explaining" things to others :-)
All the dalits I know have read the Ramayana
and Mahabharata. They'd never make the
laughable errors you make all the time !
: However, when they did get the opportunity to get
: political power (like 1947) they grabbed it
: - and havent let go since!
Which Brahmin are you referring to here ?
Knowing your "knowledge base", I wouldn't
ne surprised if you thought Sonia was
a Brahmin :-)
: Here is a tally of Brahmins Kings in Punjab:
: Period Number of Brahmin Kings
: ------ ------------------------
: 1500 BC - 1847 AD 0
: 1947 - present 5
:-)
Poor Gurupdesh ! He still lives in the feudal
world of Rajas and Ranis ! Hey, Gurupdesh, come out
of the 18th century, man ! The world has moved
on since then ! We have no Rajas ruling anymore !
Even a fifth class child in India knows
these things. Instead of learning to set up
pipe bombs in buses, if you had picked up
a book or two in your youth, you wouldn't
be in this ridiculous plight, an object
of joke in usenet !
: What happened to "Brahmins were not supposed to
: excercise power"?
Hello , Gurupdesh ! Remember the caste system ?
It has no official validity any more. In
post-47 India, there is no law preventing
anyone from holding any job on the
basis of his caste. YOu don't even know this ?
Man, you must have been living in some cave
all these years.
: > In fact, if some Brahmin held kingship, he wouldn't
: > be a Brahmin. This is precisely WHY they fancied
:
: Counterexample: Ravan was a King and is refered to as a Brahmin
: in the Ramayana.
He was born to Brahmin parents, but the
Ramayana calls him a Rakshasa, a fallen Brahmin,
a demon. Read the portion where Brahma
says that the sin of killing a Brahmin won't apply
to killers of Ravana, as he has lost his
Brahminhood.
Man, you have a lot to learn,
haven't you ? Yet I have this strange feeling
that you will NOT learn anything, only
spend your time writing falsehoods.
: Manu from the autonomous gangetic region and
: the Puranic texts forbade Brahmins from going to Punjab.
: Could it be that the foreign priests were not welcome
: in Vedic lands (Saptha Sindhva) - much less become Kings
: there in earlier times?
Could it be that you will ever get
educated and learn to think clearly and
write sense ?
: > themselves the highest caste. Gurupdesh,
: > a creature of modern materialism, where power
: > equals status, can NEVER grasp the assumptions
: > of the old caste system.
:
: Really!!!! Brahmins were always non-materialist!
: Another example of maha-phoodoo logic and common sense
: and understanding of the social sciences and human nature
: by "highly educated" neo-Brahmanists.
Did I say Brahmins were always non-materialist ?
Can you read ?
I said (and please read carefully this time ) -
In the modern materialist period, the only way
to high status is thru money and power. In the
old caste system, these were not the only ways
to high status. Brahmins, who were forbidden from
exercising political power or acquiring great
wealth, also had status. But you wouldn't be able
to grasp this point, as you are a strange
admixture of modern materialism and middle
ages feudalism.
: > Precisely ! Those "Brahmanist" ( what does the
: > ist mean ? why not simply say Brahmin ?) historians
: > knew a lot more about the caste system than
: > Gurupdesh can ever hope to know !
:
: You are completely unintelligable here.
: Brahmanist historians tend to conceal the social/political
: realities under which Brahmins truly lived - especially
: in the northwest where the dominant culture and order was
: Scythic. So, they replace the uncomfortable realities
: not conducive to their supremacist and hegemonic agenda
: and replace TRUE HISTORY with goog-o-li-gook from supposedly
: "ancient shastras" (none of which historically pre-date
: the 11th century AD).
It is you who is completely unintelligible.
Whatt part of my statement "Those "Brahmanist" ( what does the
ist mean ? why not simply say Brahmin ?) historians
knew a lot more about the caste system than
Gurupdesh can ever hope to know !" is hard to understand ?
: Historical events and social/political hierarchies are
: constructed over time and space. Brahmanist hegemonic
: dreaming require knowledge of neither. All it requires
: is a few monkeys, elephant heads, devtas and a lot of
: "creative" imagination!
All said and done, it is a lot more
fun reading those elephant head stories than the
dreary, droopy, unintelligible gunk that
you post all the time !
: > : The reality is that according to the Scythic cultural-social
: > : values of the northwest, the professions that were
: > : considered the most honorable/noble were zamindari and soldiering.
: > : A traditional Jat/Rajput/Gujjar/Tarkhan/Lohar would have committed
: > : suicide before taking up the hut!
: >
: > This is ALSO part of the caste-system mentality,
: > it is not different from it. To praise this
: > mentality and to pretend to be against the
: > caste-system is a joke :-)
:
: Well this is not the Brahmanical caste system.
: Its the Scythian social order - much more
: humane than pouring lead in the ears of dalits,
: dont you agree?
First of all, Manu's fanaticism was never reflected
in any actual law of any hindu king. In other words,
while paying lipservice to his authority, the
kings implemented a far more humane set of laws.
And secondly, the Jats and Rajputs are as conscious
of their "superiority" as any oldtime Brahmin ever
was, so there is nothing to choose between
these two kinds of self-praises. If one is
condemnable, so is the other. The Punjab is rife
with stories of Jat arrogance, Jat throwing his
weight about, Jat atrocities against lower castes
etc etc.
So what gives you the right to sneer at others,
you hypocrite ?
: Why does it upset you to know that bigger sharks
: swam in the oceans of the northwest?
Are you talking to me ? When did I say
that it upsets me to know that bigger sharks
swam etc ? Are you smoking something funny ?
How would you feel if I suddenly said,
out of the blue - " Are you upset that
longer whales swam in the southeast " ?
: > This is like criticizing the British class
: > system and then adding " We Dukes in southern
: > England would never talk with niggers" :-)
:
: The problem is that there never was any
: Brahmanical domination in the northwest.
Why is that a problem ? There was no
Brahminical domination of the United States
either, I don't see the Americans complaining
about that !
: We are objecting to Brahmanists from
: Gangaland/Bengal pretending that they
: were the Sirs here throughout our history.
But, it is ALL in your fevered imagination !
There is NO Brahmanist (or anyone else) from
Gangaland/Jamunaland/Bengal/Orissa pretending
to anything !
You really must change the dealer who is
supplying you hash.
: Comprende!
Yes, I do comprehend that you have been indulging
in far too much dope. What an imagination !
Compared to yours, the writers of the Mahabharata
didn't have enough imagination.
: > You may pretend to be "above" the caste system,
: > but your sneering words give you away as
: > a follower of the same system !
:
: As mentioned again our social system, culture, ethnicity,
: etc. is not the same as those of Brahmanists from eastern and
: southern subcontinent. You are flying the imaginary and fantasy
But it is the same kind of " I am superior to you
because I was born in this family and you weren't".
Why is Jat pride good, and Kshatriya pride bad ?
Makes no sense.
(Insane rambling deleted)
: Really, how many dalits go to Vivekananda schools
: and ashrams ?
A huge percentage of the kids in the
Ramakrishna - Vivekananda schools in Madras
are from harijan families . Wouldn't be
surprised if they are the majority.
Ha, ha, Gurupdesh, you don't know anything !!
RS
J Raza
J Raza
Deepak Sahrawat wrote:
> Jats have always ruled in the areas of their residence.
> During peace time they would plow their land, at times of
> wat jats would leave their plows and take up their swords.
> This has always been our tradition and remains so to this day.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. But there is no doubt that in
Hindusthan Rajputs play the starring role whereas in Punjab it is the
Jatts. That's all I was trying to say. If you want to be angry, be angry
with Khushwant Singh, the "writer". He is the one who talks of Hindu
Jaats as `Shudras'.
> My point here was to counter the nonsensical inneuendo that
> hindu Jats are cowards with facts. Say that to the face of any
> haryanvi jat and you can find out the answer yourself.
I never suggested that Hindu Jaats were cowards. We were discusing the
perceptions of Punjabi Jatts and how they saw the Jaats. Jatt
perceptions of Jaats do necasarilly correspond with reality.
Perhaps I could have been more careful in my phrasing.
My apologies if I offended you.
regards,
Jamil
J Raza
J Raza wrote:
>
> Deepak Sahrawat wrote:
>
> > Jats have always ruled in the areas of their residence.
> > During peace time they would plow their land, at times of
> > wat jats would leave their plows and take up their swords.
> > This has always been our tradition and remains so to this day.
>
> Hindusthan Rajputs play the starring role whereas in Punjab it is the
> Jatts. That's all I was trying to say. If you want to be angry, be angry
> with Khushwant Singh, the "writer". He is the one who talks of Hindu
> Jaats as `Shudras'.
>
> > hindu Jats are cowards with facts. Say that to the face of any
> > haryanvi jat and you can find out the answer yourself.
>
> perceptions of Punjabi Jatts and how they saw the Jaats. Jatt
> perceptions of Jaats do necasarilly correspond with reality.
Oops! That should read "Jatt perceptions do NOT necessarily correspond
with reality."
cheers,
Jamil
Ishfaq Ahmed
Nijjhar, Rajinder (cheapf...@saqnet.co.uk) wrote:
> What tribe are you Ahmed?
The lost tribe of Israel.
Ishfaq
*****************************************************************************
Cruel is not one who beats, but... does not let you cry when beats
unkown
Ishfaq Ahmed
Department of Range Resources
University of Idaho e-mail: ahme...@uidaho.edu
Moscow, ID 83844-1135 web: http://www.uidaho.edu/~ahmed901
******************************************************************************
Nitin Batra
> Then how do you explain Brahmins being Kings in their
> story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta)
Sri Ram was not a Brahmin-- He was God himself, incarnate.
>where they fight armies of well-trained monkeys. Obviously,
> they fancied being Rajas.
Who is "they"? names please.
> However, when they did get the opportunity to get
> political power (like 1947) they grabbed it
> - and havent let go since!
How did Nehru become president of INC? Was he not elected? and did he not
make caste discrimination illegal? In any case, by going abroad, he no
longer had caste, and this is no small matter-- One of big reasons for
1857-8 war was that Sepoys did not wish to be sent abroad and thus lose
their caste. And then, there is always the question of whether actual
caste of a person conforms to either caste labelings of society or family
connection.
> Counterexample: Ravan was a King and is refered to as a Brahmin
> in the Ramayana.
ok- concrete example. good. but did Ravan lead a religious life? if he was
as "evil" as stories about him suggest, why would he do what was right
when it meant losing material power?
> Manu from the autonomous gangetic region and
> the Puranic texts forbade Brahmins from going to Punjab.
Maybe because it was on the frontier, and so often, violent and unsafe.
Gurupdesh Singh
Raghu Seshadri wrote:
>
> Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
> : > Poor Gurupdesh ! He doesn't seem to know
> : > the most elementary thing about the caste
> : > sytem, yet proceeds to write hundreds of posts
> : > on it :-)
> :
> : This is what Brahmins keep telling their "inferior"
> : dalits (80% of Hindus) when they ask about the Caste
> : System - "you just dont understand it" !
> : It will take another 84,000 janams really
> : understand it - right!
>
> Not at all. Dalits understand it just fine.
> I was referring only to you, Gurupdesh. YOUR
> understanding IS inferior. Do not pretend to be
> a clever dalit. You are not.
I only thank God for not making me a Bahman.
Even our Chamars (your dalits) count themselves
lucky on that score.
>
> : > Brahmins were not supposed to exercise political
> : > power, so naturally there are no administrations
> : > controlled by Brahmins ! Is this a great
> : > revelation :-)
> :
> : Then how do you explain Brahmins being Kings in their
> : story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta) where they
> : fight armies of well-trained monkeys. Obviously,
> : they fancied being Rajas. Problem was there were
> : some armies around not made-up of monkeys.
>
> What a fool you are, Gurupdesh. It is obvious
> you have read neither the Ramayana nor the
> Mahabharata. There is NO BRAHMIN KING in either
> of these epics ! :-)
Cool down Rahgu. Everyone knows that Ravan
was a Brahmin king of SriLanka. Its all
a comic fairy tale with monkey gods and
monkey armies, but even in the fiction Ravan
is a wise Brahmin King - and that too with "10 heads".
My point was that Brahmins wanted to be Rajas
and in their fairy tales personified themselves
as men of power. Brahmanical mythologies contradict
you statements about them being "nonmaterialistic"
in olden times.
>
> It is amazing that such an ignorant person
> spends so much time writing loooooooooonnngggg
> posts "explaining" things to others :-)
> Which Brahmin are you referring to here ?
> Knowing your "knowledge base", I wouldn't
> ne surprised if you thought Sonia was
> a Brahmin :-)
I think Sonia is Catholic. Can Catholics
be Brahmins? Brahmins, however, are hereditary,
and it has nothing to do with their ignorance.
Brahmanical "sacred books" specify that
Brahmins castes are hereditary. Now go
ahead and call me a "fool" for stating a
fact.
>
> : Here is a tally of Brahmins Kings in Punjab:
> : Period Number of Brahmin Kings
> : ------ ------------------------
> : 1500 BC - 1847 AD 0
> : 1947 - present 5
>
> :-)
>
> Poor Gurupdesh ! He still lives in the feudal
> world of Rajas and Ranis ! Hey, Gurupdesh, come out
> of the 18th century, man ! The world has moved
> on since then ! We have no Rajas ruling anymore !
The world has moved light years since even 1947.
However, the Casteocracy that 7% hegemonic and
supremacist Brahmanists hijacked from the departing
Brits has hardly moved an inch. Under their
50 years of plunder/thievery great Hindusthan
is now competing with sub-saharan Africa in terms
of percapita income, poverty, hygenie, public health.
Dream on . . .
>
> Even a fifth class child in India knows
> these things. Instead of learning to set up
> pipe bombs in buses, if you had picked up
> a book or two in your youth, you wouldn't
> be in this ridiculous plight, an object
> of joke in usenet !
I usually dont find Brahmanist "humor" funny.
Laugh on - as long as you can!
But we will have the last laugh.
>
> : What happened to "Brahmins were not supposed to
> : excercise power"?
>
> Hello , Gurupdesh ! Remember the caste system ?
> It has no official validity any more. In
> post-47 India, there is no law preventing
> anyone from holding any job on the
> basis of his caste. YOu don't even know this ?
There is no such thing as "law" in Bharatvarsh.
The stranglehold that Casteocrats have on the
beaurocracy/political system/politics the the
main barrier.
How come you "HIGHEST CASTE" Banias/Brahmins did not
have control/rule over even ONE state/government/army/etc
in all of southasia before Brits began creatin India in the
19th century.
According to basic principles of the Social/Political
Sciences during this historical period, what were Brahmins
"upper castes" of - monkeys above the Banyan tree ?
> : > In fact, if some Brahmin held kingship, he wouldn't
> : > be a Brahmin. This is precisely WHY they fancied
> :
> : Counterexample: Ravan was a King and is refered to as a Brahmin
> : in the Ramayana.
>
> He was born to Brahmin parents, but the
> Ramayana calls him a Rakshasa, a fallen Brahmin,
> a demon. Read the portion where Brahma
> says that the sin of killing a Brahmin won't apply
> to killers of Ravana, as he has lost his
> Brahminhood.
Fairy tales used to talk about historical events.
Where and when did the Ramayan/Mahabharta take place?
Are these historical events? If they are, then
dates and places should be supplied?
Sorry, lunatic tales donot wash as "history"
and "social science" outside the Casteocracy.
Even the Greeks whose mythiologies are a lot
more beleiveable dont claim that and
Hercules and Zena were historical characters
and did all those things.
>
> Man, you have a lot to learn,
> haven't you ? Yet I have this strange feeling
> that you will NOT learn anything, only
> spend your time writing falsehoods.
HA HA HA . . . the labor is showing!
>
> : Manu from the autonomous gangetic region and
> : the Puranic texts forbade Brahmins from going to Punjab.
> : Could it be that the foreign priests were not welcome
> : in Vedic lands (Saptha Sindhva) - much less become Kings
> : there in earlier times?
>
> Could it be that you will ever get
> educated and learn to think clearly and
> write sense ?
>
> : > themselves the highest caste. Gurupdesh,
> : > a creature of modern materialism, where power
> : > equals status, can NEVER grasp the assumptions
> : > of the old caste system.
> :
> : Really!!!! Brahmins were always non-materialist!
> : Another example of maha-phoodoo logic and common sense
> : and understanding of the social sciences and human nature
> : by "highly educated" neo-Brahmanists.
>
> Did I say Brahmins were always non-materialist ?
> Can you read ?
SO what were you saying? I remember you were trying
to explain why Brahmins were not Kings/land-owners/general/
soldiers throughout history but were still the HIGHEST
CASTE and then some acquired the thirst for all these things
in 1947.
>
> I said (and please read carefully this time ) -
>
> In the modern materialist period, the only way
> to high status is thru money and power. In the
> old caste system, these were not the only ways
How naive and stupid clever Brahmanist can be - when
they want to! Please give name and date of
one society in the history of humanity where
HIGH STATUS was not achieved through politial
and economic power. Now dont through Jesus or
the Buddha at me. Not every Brahmin to walk the
earth was a Buddha!
This is another example of Brahmanist Social
Science: when they were not the "big fish"
(most of real history - 100% of Punjabi history)
it was because they were living in a
"non-material age". Now that (after 1947) they
are big fish and have political/beaurocratic
power it is because they are "materialistic".
Totally absurd! In any Western schools if
someone wrote such a paper/thesis, one would be
laughed at by the Professor and given a big fat "F-".
But in Indian universities (dominated by
neo-Brahmanist) this pro-Brahmanical crap flies
as "history" and "social science"! Where
they can invent themselves as the perpetual
HIGHEST CASTE of any region of southasis with
having to know any history, dates, places, events,
etc. All they need to do is CLAIM IT.
Please gives dates and places in southasia where
the "old caste system" in which Brahmins could
become the highest members of society without
having any political/economic/military power
was practised (remember history occurs over
TIME and SPACE). Also, when Buddhism was dominant
(10-14 centuries) prior to 1000 AD, the Brahmins
lacked even this "religious power".
According to historical facts, the historical/religious
profile of the Punjab regions is
1) Vedic period of Saptha Sandhva (1500BC-500BC)
2) Gandharan Buddhist (400BC - 900AD)
3) Post Buddhist (1000AD): Influx of Islam/Brahmanism.
Local development of Sufism/Sikhism.
Also Punjab was politically soverign of rest of
southasia (e.g. Bengal, gangaland, Tamil Nadu)
more than 90% of its known 3300 years of history
prior to annexation in 1947.
Also explain why texts from independent gangasthan
forbid Brahmins for travelling to Punjab. How
could Brahmins have sway there if they are
forbidden to go their and allowed in by the
locals.? Were the Brahmins of Gangaland the
HIGHEST CASTES of Vedic society in Punjab/SINDH
(1500-500BC).
This are historical issues which Brahmanist history
never bothers to address but goes on claiming this,
claming that, . . . ad naseaum.
Please try to apply some basic rules of History and
Social Sciences in explaining how Brahmanists were supreme
(the "Highest") in the Punjab and northwest. They did not
have any great political/military/religious power and
the religions were Gandharan Buddhist and Vedic. So
please explain why Brahmanist historians and history
books claim to be the perpetual HIGEST CASTE when
their is no historical or Social Science basis to
support such supremacist CLAIMS?
Were they also the HIGHEST CASTE during Mogul/Afghan rule?;
during Buddhist rule?; during Scythic rule in the northwest?
It was the lunacy of non-materialistic Brahmin law
giver like Manu in the Gangetic region (completely
autonomous events separate from the entire northwest)
between 700-500 BC which spawned Buddhism and its
growth. And it relieved the great misery and indignities
caused by the local Gangetic Brahmanical order of the time.
But soon Scythic invasions and kings smashed this
perversion and gave the subcontinent and central
asia 1000-1400 years of Buddhism till Shankarcharya
(a Tamil) of 900AD. Buddhism was replaced from north
to south by his Tamilian Brahmanism between 8-11th century.
And most of the ruling classes/armies/government during the Buddhist
period all over north India were of Scythic origin. They practised
mostly Buddhism not Brahmanism between 400 BC to 800-1100 AD.
I suppose Brahmins were also the "HIGEST CASTE" during
this period according to Brahmanist history/social science?
>
> Why is Jat pride good, and Kshatriya pride bad ?
> Makes no sense.
Kshatriya is a functional category - segment of society
that were soldiers. When did Banias (who nowdays
claim to be Khatriayas) fight their last war?
Please give date and place and ruler involved.
There have always been two types of Khatriyas in
southasia - those who patronized Brahmins
and those who did NOT and did not find a good reason to
share power/wealth with them. The British, Portegese,
French, Afghans, Moguls, Sikhs, Sycthians, Bactrians,
and Buddhist kings, did not practise Brahmanism and also
felt no need to share power with them. In Brahmanical writings
they are all refered to as "shudras", "mlechhas",
and "lower castes" (years/centuries later; otherwise
heads would have flown).
The second type of Kshatiya, who took Brahmins as priests and
gave them monopoly over religion, are loved and respected
by Brahmins and nice things were said about them in
their books. Even Ashoka, the Buddhist Emporer who
built the biggest empire in southasia, is defiled
as a "mlechha", "shudra" and "minor king". If
it wasnt for Chinese, Greek, and Persian chroniclers
his entire history was almost completely erased by Brahmins
after 10th century AD. According to Brahmins, Ashoka
the ruler of the empire was a "lower caste" while you run
of the mill village Brahmin going around homes knocking for
free food was the "HIGHEST CASTE".
The first type of Khatriyas had political/administrative
rule and land ownership over Punjab 100% of its 3500 years
of known history prior to 1947. The first type
also ruled rest of northern Indian at least 80%
of its history - the Buddhist Scythic reign of 1000-1400
years being the longest; Afghans, and Moguls come in
second.
But according to Brahmanist history and social science,
all Brahmins were superior to them. How can you
beat that logic!
Gurupdesh Singh
> : creeds without any prejudice - lest I be labeled a "Racist"
> : by some Hitler-loving Brahmanoid.
>
> This is certainly not true if one goes by your postings. You consider
> "Dasu" to be a racial epithet and are quite fond of using it. Your whole
> concept of a "Indo-Scuthic"-sthan is based on a concept of shared
> ethnicity.
Ethnity, culture, history, . . . . etc.
You mentioned somewhere earlier that you dont fit the
"Jat imagine" whatever you conceive that to be.
But we are willing to live with that . . . as long as
you can.
>
> : You are stuck-up on this diversity business.
> : I agree with you - every Jat is not 6'2'' and does
> : not look like Dharminder or Dara Singh.
> : Now, can we move on . . . please.
>
> Well if you agree that Jats are not a homogeneous ethnic group than what happens
> to your theory behind "Indo-Scythic"-sthan?
Well lets pursue your arguement further: India is a
even less homogenous region (racially, linguistically,
ethnically, culturally, historically, etc.) than the
north-west Scythia. If the more common north-west should
not be anything what is the reason d'etre for your fantasy
Hindusthan in all of southasia?
You cant have your cake and eat it too! Mr. Diversity.
Hindusthan was first created by a "foreign" adventurous Afghan
in the 12h century. Now since the 19th century Brahmanists
who hated Afghans and Moguls claim that "Hindusthan" existed
for "10 thousands years". What perversion of history!
If I had come to northern rajasthan (created 1950s)
in the 11th century and said "Gurv sae kavo, hum Hindu hae",
I would have been received "VACANT LOOKS". Meanwhile, if
I had said "Ajoh, Jatoh bhangra payeh", the ground would
have shook.
I really think you guys have been reading too many Kirar
propaganda phamplets on fantasy history.
>
> : By the way, why do you think that Dasus are inferior to
> : so-called Aryans. They built better cities than those
> : Aryan drunkards of the RigVeda. Although they did
> : better Bhangra it seems from the hyms.
>
> I am not the one throwing "Dasu" around as a pejorative epithet. I do not even
> know if such a group as the Dasus existed in reality. So there is certainly
> no reason for me to believe that Dasus are inferior to Aryans, which in itself
> is a rather vague and unscientific term.
Well if our Vedic surmas gave the term to us, I have every
right to use it - regardless of whether it is "scientific"
or not. But dasus have no right to call our separate
history/peoples THEIRS! Also they have no right to
call themselves Vedic. No Punjabi calls himself a
Tamil, Bengali, etc. Show the same courtesy.
They should dig up the earth around Benaras, Calcutta,
and Madras (regions 2000-3000 miles away from Saptha Sindhva)
and find their own true roots and history. Also Punjab was
historically and politically separate from Benaras and calcutta over
90% of its 3500 known history prior to annextation in 1847.
So we dont want to be part of any Poorbia/Bengali Brahmanist
dreams of hegemony advanced by orgs like BJP/RSS/etc since
late 19th century.
They have no right to steal OUR history and call us anything
aside from "Punjab", "Gandhara", or "Saptha Sindhva". There
were also no "Hindus" in Punjab prior to uncle Ghori.
Damn that Muhammud Ghori, and his curse of "Hindusthan".
You touched a raw nerve there.
>
> : Saurabh-ji, annah gusa mut khao. I would love to visit
> : our Jat brothers in western UP and Rajasthan and exchange some
> : vichar/tandhra with them. I will definitely do so the next time
> : I visit the Scythian provinces (Saka-sthan) of the northwest.
>
> Please do. And be prepared to be greeted with blank and vacant stares when
> you talk about "Indo-Scythic"-sthan.
>
> : Those Brahmanoids cant separate blood no matter how hard they try.
>
> Ethnicity doesn't matter to you according to you above in the post, and now
> it does? Jats, or other such castes cannot be considered races or
> homogeneous ethnic groups now though they might have been so many thousands
> of years ago. As such, any separatist idea based on an assumed homogeneous
Again I throw it in your face. What is the "idea based on an
[bigger] assumed HOMOGENEOUS" "Hindusthan" if our homogeneity
in the northwest Scythian provinces cannot buy us a basket of cow
dung?
Your arguments are totally hypocritical and inconsistent:
you use this lack of perfect homogeneity arguement against
Scythian Sakasthan (Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat) and then
turn around and use even lesser homogeneity of all southasia
to argue for historically never-existent politically ONE
Hindusthan (all of southasia).
Two things for sure: Whatever your argument/beliefs are
for a ONE Hindusthan - HOMOGENEITY and HISTORY do not
support your position!
They better support my position of an independent and separate
Gandhara, Saptha Sindhva, and MahaPunjab.
Gurupdesh Singh
Mo wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 22:40:24 -0500, Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu>
> wrote:
> >Then how do you explain Brahmins being Kings in their
> story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta) where they
> fight armies of well-trained monkeys.<
> As for rule after 1947 , Brahmins like Nehru were elected by the
> people and so became rulers or Kshatriya by occupation. You are the
> only casteist insisting they stayed Brahmin (teacher)
You very well know that caste is hereditary baburam.
According Brahmin laws on caste, it cannot be changed.
In fact the biggest evil according to Brahmanical texts
is not pouring lead in the ears of Shudras, not beating
women like "dogs", but NOT DOING THE SACRED CASTE DUTY.
Therefore, according to "Brahmin Law", caste can be changed
and all 5 after 1947 will burn in Brahmin hell.
Mo
story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta) where they
fight armies of well-trained monkeys.<
Raghu Seshadri
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: > >Then how do you explain Brahmins being Kings in their
: > story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta) where they
: > fight armies of well-trained monkeys.<
: > As for rule after 1947 , Brahmins like Nehru were elected by the
: > people and so became rulers or Kshatriya by occupation. You are the
: > only casteist insisting they stayed Brahmin (teacher)
: You very well know that caste is hereditary baburam.
: According Brahmin laws on caste, it cannot be changed.
: In fact the biggest evil according to Brahmanical texts
: women like "dogs", but NOT DOING THE SACRED CASTE DUTY.
Just because you wanted Nehru to follow these
ugly caste rules, does not mean he should.
YOu are welcome to follow these stupid rules,
but the rest of us prefer to follow the
egalitarian Indian Constitution, which forbids
these things.
If Guru Nanak had your mentality, he'd never
have preached equality, would he ? Why don't you
learn from him ?
: Therefore, according to "Brahmin Law", caste can be changed
: and all 5 after 1947 will burn in Brahmin hell.
Make up your mind. Is there really a brahmin hell ?
If yes, you will burn too for abusing brahmins.
If not, they will not burn.
Either way, things don't look pleasant for you :-)
RS
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya
In article <6dhqm7$a8c$4...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>,
Ishfaq Ahmed <ahme...@news.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>Nijjhar, Rajinder (cheapf...@saqnet.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> What tribe are you Ahmed?
>
>The lost tribe of Israel.
>
>Ishfaq
And do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?
Brij
----
Gurupdesh Singh
> : > story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta) where they
> : > fight armies of well-trained monkeys.<
> : > As for rule after 1947 , Brahmins like Nehru were elected by the
> : > people and so became rulers or Kshatriya by occupation. You are the
> : > only casteist insisting they stayed Brahmin (teacher)
> :
> : You very well know that caste is hereditary baburam.
> : According Brahmin laws on caste, it cannot be changed.
> : In fact the biggest evil according to Brahmanical texts
> : is not pouring lead in the ears of Shudras, not beating
> : women like "dogs", but NOT DOING THE SACRED CASTE DUTY.
>
> Just because you wanted Nehru to follow these
> ugly caste rules, does not mean he should.
> YOu are welcome to follow these stupid rules,
> but the rest of us prefer to follow the
> egalitarian Indian Constitution, which forbids
> these things.
>
> If Guru Nanak had your mentality, he'd never
> have preached equality, would he ? Why don't you
> learn from him ?
Dont try to be too "chalak" my friend!
I was refering to "Sacred Brahmin Laws"
found in books of "Holy Brahmin Law Givers"
You guys feel so pride about: this shastra
that shastra, written by great Brahmins.
I dont believe in any of this crap - neither
did Nanak. I simply stated what sacred Brahmin
laws think of people like Nehru who change
their "sacred caste duty".
Despite the change, Nehru was still very arrogant
about being a Brahmin - read his history (fantasy) book.
Saurabh Jang
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: Well lets pursue your arguement further: India is a
: even less homogenous region (racially, linguistically,
: ethnically, culturally, historically, etc.) than the
: north-west Scythia. If the more common north-west should
: not be anything what is the reason d'etre for your fantasy
: Hindusthan in all of southasia?
Gurupdesh, please don't make the world think less of Cornell students by
making a simple logical error. I have never claimed that a ethnically
homogeneous group is a necessity for forming a nation. You have however
stressed this ethnic solidarity part in your theories. I have merely
pointed out that first of all, this ethnic group or collection of
groups is not a monolithic homogeneous unit, thereby undermining the
ethnic rationale for your desired state of "Indo-Scythic"-sthan.
Nitin Batra
> > : You very well know that caste is hereditary baburam.
> > : According Brahmin laws on caste, it cannot be changed.
Please give us a source where such laws are.
> > : In fact the biggest evil according to Brahmanical texts
> > : is not pouring lead in the ears of Shudras, not beating
> > : women like "dogs", but NOT DOING THE SACRED CASTE DUTY.
Is not Ahimsa the sacred dharma/"caste duty"? So are you not
referring to the same thing?
> >
> > Just because you wanted Nehru to follow these
> > ugly caste rules, does not mean he should.
> > YOu are welcome to follow these stupid rules,
> > but the rest of us prefer to follow the
> > egalitarian Indian Constitution, which forbids
> > these things.
> >
> > If Guru Nanak had your mentality, he'd never
> > have preached equality, would he ? Why don't you
> > learn from him ?
>
> Dont try to be too "chalak" my friend!
>
> I was refering to "Sacred Brahmin Laws"
> found in books of "Holy Brahmin Law Givers"
This is not exactly the most influential writing on hindu thinking. The
Vedas, the Gita?? please give a source that when the idea of caste
FIRST emerged, it was by birth.
> You guys feel so pride about: this shastra
> that shastra, written by great Brahmins.
Were all the Shastras written by Brahmins?
Ramesh
Nitin Batra wrote:
>
> > > : You very well know that caste is hereditary baburam.
> > > : According Brahmin laws on caste, it cannot be changed.
>
> Please give us a source where such laws are.
These are the teachings in Manu smriti which BJP(brahmins)want to
impose on India.No wonder Brahmins believe that they are born to rule
other's who are not as "intelligent" as them.Their guru has granted them
the right.READ AND ENJOY.
In order to protect this universe He, the most resplendent one,
assigned
separate (duties and) occupations to those who sprang from his mouth,
arms,
thighs, and feet.
To Brahmanas he assigned teaching and studying (the Veda), sacrificing
for
their own benefit and for others, giving and accepting (of alms).
The Kshatriya he commanded to protect the people, to bestow gifts, to
offer
sacrifices, to study (the Veda), and to abstain from attaching himself
to sensual
pleasures;
The Vaisya to tend cattle, to bestow gifts, to offer sacrifices, to
study (the
Veda), to trade, to lend money, and to cultivate land.
One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudra, to serve meekly
these (other) three castes.
As the Brahmana sprang from (Brahman's) mouth, as he was the
first-born, and as he possesses the Veda, he is by right the lord of
this whole creation.
Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which
are animated; of the animated, those which subsist by intelligence; of
the intelligent, mankind; and of men, the Brahmanas;
The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the sacred
law; for he is born to (fulfil) the sacred law, and becomes one with
Brahman.
A Brahmana, coming into existence, is born as the highest on
earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of thetreasury
of the law.
Whatever exists in the world is, the property of the Brahmana; on
account of the excellence of his origin The Brahmana is, indeed,
entitled to all.
Brahmana sanctifies any company (which he may enter), seven
ancestors and seven descendants, and he alone deserves (to possess) this
whole earth.
Let (the first part of) a Brahmana's name (denote something) auspicious,
a Kshatriya's be connected with power, and a Vaisya's with wealth, but a
Sudra's (express something) contemptible.
> > > : In fact the biggest evil according to Brahmanical texts
> > > : is not pouring lead in the ears of Shudras, not beating
> > > : women like "dogs", but NOT DOING THE SACRED CASTE DUTY.
> Is not Ahimsa the sacred dharma/"caste duty"? So are you not
> referring to the same thing?
>
> > >
> > > Just because you wanted Nehru to follow these
> > > ugly caste rules, does not mean he should.
> > > YOu are welcome to follow these stupid rules,
> > > but the rest of us prefer to follow the
> > > egalitarian Indian Constitution, which forbids
> > > these things.
> > >
> > > If Guru Nanak had your mentality, he'd never
> > > have preached equality, would he ? Why don't you
> > > learn from him ?
> >
> > Dont try to be too "chalak" my friend!
> >
> > I was refering to "Sacred Brahmin Laws"
> > found in books of "Holy Brahmin Law Givers"
>
> This is not exactly the most influential writing on hindu thinking. The
> Vedas, the Gita?? please give a source that when the idea of caste
> FIRST emerged, it was by birth.
Brahmanas who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste,
soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.
According to Atri and to (Gautama) the son of Utathya, he who weds a
Sudra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a
son,
and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sudra
female, alone).
A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink
into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a
Brahmana.
The manes and the gods will not eat the (offerings) of that man who
performs the rites in honour of the gods, of the manes, and of guests
chiefly with a (Sudra wife's) assistance, and such (a man) will not go
to heaven.
For him who drinks the moisture of a Sudra's lips, who is tainted by
her
breath, and who begets a son on her, no expiation is prescribed.
In the blameless marriages blameless children are born to men, in
blamable
(marriages) blamable (offspring); one should therefore avoid the
blamable (forms of marriage).
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980302...@rigel.oac.uci.edu>, Nitin Batra <nba...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>>
>> The reality is that according to the Scythic cultural-social
>> values of the northwest, the professions that were
>> considered the most honorable/noble were zamindari and soldiering.
>
>by birth??) was considered higher than other dharmas because what is
>honorable/noble or pleasure is satisfying only to a person in lower stage
>of development, one still thick in illusions. It seems to me
> no one could possibly know who is and who
>isn't Brahmin-- no one REALLY knows how liberated versus attached any
>other person is--- I highly doubt it is by family when I see such
>apparently radical differences between people within a given family or
>society-named caste. Perhaps God put each person at birth into a family
>and series of
>life experiences because that is where they left off from their previous
>life in growth, in understanding process. I can hardly conceive of such
>growth working if everyone you see is at the exact same stage of
>development, so brothers are probably of different castes, isn't it?
Mr. Batra, God did not create the Caste System - the Brahmins did.
>
>> real history and social science so their hegemonic
>> and supremacist post 19th century fanstasies dreamed
>> -up by the likes of Dayanada, Vivekananda, RSS, BJP,
>> can fly.
>
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98030...@rigel.oac.uci.edu>, Nitin Batra <nba...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>> Then how do you explain Brahmins being Kings in their
>> story tales (e.g. Ramanaya, Mahabharta)
>
>
>> they fancied being Rajas.
>
>
>> political power (like 1947) they grabbed it
>> - and havent let go since!
>
>make caste discrimination illegal? In any case, by going abroad, he no
>longer had caste, and this is no small matter-- One of big reasons for
>1857-8 war was that Sepoys did not wish to be sent abroad and thus lose
>their caste. And then, there is always the question of whether actual
>caste of a person conforms to either caste labelings of society or family
>connection.
>
>
>> in the Ramayana.
>
>as "evil" as stories about him suggest, why would he do what was right
>when it meant losing material power?
Mr Batra, the argument was concerning the claim by Mr. Raghu that
Brahmins in olden times were non-materialistic. I provided a counterexample.
You are starting another discussion here about whether he was or not "evil".
He (the fictional Ravan), was probably upset at Lakhsman cutting the nose
of his sister. But cutting the nose of women propositioning you in no way
to treat a lady. So, the writer of this version of the Ramayan (Tulsidas,
16th century) was not much of a gentleman.
>
>
>
>> Manu from the autonomous gangetic region and
>> the Puranic texts forbade Brahmins from going to Punjab.
>
>Maybe because it was on the frontier, and so often, violent and unsafe.
>
Well it was a frontier for the foreign priesthood from the separate and
autonoumous gangetic region. Similarly, the Ganga river was the frontier for
Vedic peoples whose heartland was Punjab/Sindh (1500 BC - 500 BC). The
RigVeda contains strong tabboos against crossing the frontier. Similarly, the
culturally, ethnically and religiously different Gangetic people admonished
their Brahmin priests and people from crossing the border. There is
strong historical evidence of animosity and bad-blood existing on both sides
(e.g. RigVedas of Punjab/Sindh and Puranas/Shastras of Gangetic region).
Deepak Sahrawat
: > Jats have always ruled in the areas of their residence.
: > During peace time they would plow their land, at times of
: > wat jats would leave their plows and take up their swords.
: > This has always been our tradition and remains so to this day.
: Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. But there is no doubt that in
: Hindusthan Rajputs play the starring role whereas in Punjab it is the
: Jatts. That's all I was trying to say. If you want to be angry, be angry
: with Khushwant Singh, the "writer". He is the one who talks of Hindu
: Jaats as `Shudras'.
I dont understand the distinction you seem to make between Punjab
and Hindustan. It appears like what you are saying stems from some
sort of Punjabi nationalism and also an ignorance of the history
and culture of jats. Let me ask you a simple question, if the hindu
jats are supposedly shudras what are sikh and muslim jats? Given
that at some point in time they converted from hinduism what you
are saying does not make any sense. Are you saying that somehow the
act of speaking in punjabi makes 'punjabi' jats unique? Also can you
give a reference about where Khushwant Singh has written what you
claim above? Furthurmore if you look at this from another angle, the
hindu jats are still hindu after having successfully resisted the
atrocities of centuries of mughal rule whereas the pakistani jats
converted to islam. Just a thought.
Just to clarify one more misconception you seem to have. Jats and
Rajputs in India for the most part live and 'dominate' in mutually
exclusive areas. As I have mentioned before haryana, western up
and north rajasthan are areas of hindu jats domination. As you
may know the state of haryana was fromed when the indian state of
punjab was spilt into punjab, haryana and himachal pradesh in the
late 1960s.
Arguably the hindu jats today are one of the most secular, democratic,
progressive and _patriotic_ communities in India. The people of haryana
are happy that they have their own state where the haryanvi language
and culture is thriving when previously it was suffering at the cost
of punjabi. I agree with you that there is not much in common between
sikh and hindu jats. Given that religion and language are different
there are no scope for much interaction at all. In fact they are rivals
of sort if you witness the current squabbles between punjab and haryana
over the distribution of water, status of certain districts and chandigarh.
Anyhow I have said my bit. My intent was to add some facts to this
thread because there is some level of ignorance about the history
of jats. However this is all history and I believe that people
of the subcontinent should get above such petty concerns as caste
and religion and start working towards the huge task of development
of their countries.
Have a nice day.
Deepak Sahrawat.
Gurupdesh Singh
Kushwant Singh - a non-Jat - is a communalist who
does not leave any opportunity unturned to put down Jats,
regardless of whether they are Punjabi or Haryanvi.
His history book on the Sikhs is also written from a
completely Brahmanist perspective. Indira Gandhi
was so happy with his propaganda activities, especially
against Sikhs and Punjab, that she gave him a Congress
ticket in Delhi.
>
> Just to clarify one more misconception you seem to have. Jats and
> Rajputs in India for the most part live and 'dominate' in mutually
> exclusive areas. As I have mentioned before haryana, western up
> and north rajasthan are areas of hindu jats domination. As you
> may know the state of haryana was fromed when the indian state of
> punjab was spilt into punjab, haryana and himachal pradesh in the
> late 1960s.
Thanks for your enlightening input Deepak. There have been
a lot of misconception created because of barriers to
communication created by political boundaries and I also believe
the mischevious Brahmanist press, state-run radio/television,
cultural media (Hindi movies), and the Indian education system
(especially as it pertains to history) - all instruments
controlled by the same caste clique.
The general policy regarding Jats is to demean them socially,
marginalize/ignore their history, and distort/misrepresent
the real traditional (Scythic) social system of the northwest
by paint them as "shudras" under Brahmin/Bania domination.
All Jats and Zamindars have been hit economically through
ridiculous land ceilings (18 acres/household), settings of
artificially low agrarian prices (50% of international),
denial of entry into new industries/sectors through
"Permit and Licence Raj". There has also been an attempts
to politically marginalize them by Brahmanist in the Congress
in their own areas by mobolizing Dalits against them.
Mukesh Pardhan(1966) in his book "The Political System of
the Jats of Northern India" talks extensively about
this michevious anti-Jat/Sikh politics played by supremacist
Brahmanist.
Even the Hindi movie industry in Bombay, controlled
by Khatri-Hindus and Banias from Gujarat, plays it part.
I have virtually stoped watching them because of the obnoxious
and sickening stereotyping and putting-down of Sikhs and Jats
(both Punjabi and Haryanvi) which goes on. It seems that
the Banias are bent on winning every battle on stage they
lost in real life over the past 2500 years. Jats/Sikhs
are usually portrayed as stupid ignorant brutes standing in the
sidelines of their "hero" waiting to deliver their one or two
crass lines such as "Asi Punjab wich ankho ko daalae kahtae-hah";
ditto with some stupid Haryanvi line dreamed up by some
Kirar scriptwriter/producer.
On the political level, there has been a well concerted policy of
GOI (run by supremacist and hegemonic 7% Brahmanists) to instigate,
divide and polarize Punjabis/Haryanvis who are ethnically,
linguistically and culturally more similar than any other nationalities
in all of southasia. Some tricks have been:
1) 30% of population of south Punjab (Haryana) listed Punjabi as
their mah-boli in the 1961 census, yet the Brahmanists installed
Tamil as the second language of Haryana after 1967.
2) Two Punjabi-speaking majority districts were purposely left out
to keep the burner for future political tension/mischief burning.
3) Punjab and Haryana are the only 2 states in the Indian union
whose capitals are under a Union Territory (one).
4) Another basis on which this divide and control politics has
been played is with "water resources" which Punjab has always
been
willing to share but under the rules of the Indian Constitution.
Moreover, this politics of mischief is played among Haryanvis
themselves. You stated that Haryanvi Jats are distributed in Western UP,
north Rajasthan and Haryana. The Jat states of Bharatpur and Dohlpur
entered the Indian Union on the promise by Nehru and Congress
that a common state would be established from Jat territories.
There was complete betrayal after annexation. In Nehru's mind,
the issue of a Jaat Suba and Punjabi Suba were linked and
he is known to have stated that he would never let it happen
till his death - and he kept his promise.
The Brahmanists played the divide them game again with Jaat
territory: they merged parts of Bharatpur into Rajputanna
(much smaller) to create a new Rajasthan. The idea was
to heighten Jat/Rajput tension and enmity and bring those
Jaats under politically dominated of Rajputs. The other parts
of Bhawalpur and Dohlpur (western UP) were separated and
merged into the United Provinces (renamed Uttar Pradesh, 1956)
so Jaats could be controlled through the Poorbia majority there.
In the future, I hope that both Punjabis and Haryanvis
will learn from the past and see through this political
chicanery and politics of division/control played by
Brahmanists at the center. Instead of falling into this
trap, Sikhs, Jatts, Jaats, and Rajputs should see the GAME
and work for common understanding, prosperity and development.
>
> Arguably the hindu jats today are one of the most secular, democratic,
> progressive and _patriotic_ communities in India. The people of haryana
Thats not how the Indian press portrays it. In fact, the only
news of caste violence which is ever allowed to escape India
by the Brahmanist press core (PTI) is with regard to Jaat villages
in UP/Haryana and those from Bihar.
> are happy that they have their own state where the haryanvi language
> and culture is thriving when previously it was suffering at the cost
> of punjabi. I agree with you that there is not much in common between
> sikh and hindu jats. Given that religion and language are different
> there are no scope for much interaction at all. In fact they are rivals
> of sort if you witness the current squabbles between punjab and haryana
> over the distribution of water, status of certain districts and chandigarh.
>
> Anyhow I have said my bit. My intent was to add some facts to this
> thread because there is some level of ignorance about the history
> of jats. However this is all history and I believe that people
> of the subcontinent should get above such petty concerns as caste
> and religion and start working towards the huge task of development
> of their countries.
One hopes.
>
> Have a nice day.
> Deepak Sahrawat.
I also have a question. You mentioned that UP/Rajasthan
Jaats also speak Haryanvi. I get the impression that
in western UP, they just speak Hindi. Is there any
difference left - especially with all the Poorbia
cultural/linguistic domination which has gone on in Jaat
regions since 1947. One of the most influential Poorbia-based
organization active in Haryana at least has been
Arya-Samaj. I dont know if they have cells in Rajasthan
and Western UP.
Nijjhar, Rajinder
Those who are afraid to disclose their tribal identity hate their own
fathers, how would they accept God as Father? No way.
--
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar, M.Sc.
Mussallmaan of Pir Nanak Shah,
A Jat of the Greater United Panjab
Retired Senior Lecturer in Metallurgy,
Gnostics are the living christs (satgurus) and NOT Christians, of Living
Allah (Spirit),
http://www.saqnet.co.uk/users/cheapflights/index.htm
http://www.saqnet.co.uk/users/cheapflight/gnostic.htm
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya <b...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote in article
<6di6nh$j...@news.acns.nwu.edu>...
Raghu Seshadri
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: Mr Batra, the argument was concerning the claim by Mr. Raghu that
: Brahmins in olden times were non-materialistic. I provided a counterexample.
That Gurupdesh has to lie brazenly and repeatedly
is proof that he has conceded the debate. If truth
is on your side, why would you need to lie to
bolster your non-existent case ?
Needless to say, I never said anything so absurd
as "Brahmins in olden times were non-materialistic".
RS
Gurupdesh Singh
Sridhar wrote:
>
> Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
> >
> > Dont try to be too "chalak" my friend!
> >
> > I was refering to "Sacred Brahmin Laws"
> > found in books of "Holy Brahmin Law Givers"
> > that shastra, written by great Brahmins.
> > did Nanak.
>
> like you, Sid Harth and Rajah Skandarajah that like to imagine
> such stuff and rant like loony lepers.
They now believe in "Neo-Brahmanism" - an even more
dangerous, hegemonic, and supremacist ideology - based
on "Aryan" racial fantasies of 19th century
OC idealogues like Dayananda, Vivekannanda, etc.
and propaganted by neo-Brahmanist orgs/schools run by
GOI, RSS, BJP, etc. These fellows began developing
a new "proud" supremacist religio-nationalist identity
for OCs by making all sorts of quack hegemonic claims
over southasia history, religions, territory.
Brahmanists (7%) see themselves as the "rightful ruling class"
of their Hindu flock in their ONE HINDU NATION EMPIRE (Hindusthan)
- which in reality was never ONE, NEVER existed before 12th
century AD, and was almost NEVER ruled by OCs.
Sridhar
Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
>
> Sridhar wrote:
> >
limiting the scope of the discussion to people posting on this
newsgroup, you, i.e. gurupdesh singh, are one of the (if not THE)
most vocal "propagantor" of racist fantasies. that doesn't necessarily
make you dangerous - there being few takers for your theories.
now, are you brahmanist, too? if not, who are these brahmanists
that you talk about? did vivekananda say that only the brahmanists
should rule the country? why does he not have a right to his
interpretation of history when you don't seem to back off yours?
Nitin Batra
> Mr. Batra, God did not create the Caste System - the Brahmins did.
I'm wondering if perhaps caste is inherent in human growth, not that it
was created. That caste is a stage of development, a set of experiences
and ideas that once completed naturally, without any intervention at all,
brings you to a new stage, continually changing throughout life and not
stopping on account of death. There is no reason to think caste is by
family, or that it involves any sort of creation or intervention. Just
like any study-once you understand derivatives in calculus, you are
prepared to go to integrals, and then maybe partial differential
equations, and so on and so on. It's just where you are at that point.
And in this definition, nobody knows any other's caste! isn't it?
Nitin Batra
Mo
On 5 Mar 1998 04:04:29 GMT, dee...@Sun.COM (Deepak Sahrawat) wrote:
> The people of haryana
and culture is thriving when previously it was suffering at the cost
of punjabi. <
the people there have always said their mother tongue is Hindi (
according to Gurupradesh and Kulbir) the Hindus there could make it
the most prosperous state of India , where their culture would thrive
free from Punjabi/Sikh oppression.
Having said that one must say that the new Akali govt in
Punjab mellowed by the BJP has been good. It has not pandered to the
fundamentalist Khalistanis and early fears of it doing so have not
materialised. If however their attitude changes then the Hindus would
be justified in asking for a separate state.
Mo
On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 01:25:20 -0500, Gurupdesh Singh <gs...@cornell.edu>
wrote:
> In fact, the only
news of caste violence which is ever allowed to escape India
by the Brahmanist press core (PTI) is with regard to Jaat villages
in UP/Haryana and those from Bihar. <
their own to get the truth out in India , a country with a free
press ?
Perpindervir Singh
Mo (11305...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: On 28 Feb 1998 21:13:14 -0500, mu...@panix.com (Devadatta Mukutmoni)
: wrote:>Further evidence that Mo is very stupid.
: It is Hargovind Singh Khorana, you dummy.
: He is definitely not sikh. He is a rajput.<
: I did not say he was Sikh ! What I was trying to point out
: that in an equivalent position monotheists do much worse than
: secular/ploytheists as monotheists deliberately restrict there vision.
: There has never been a Muslm Nobel prize winner either .
: That may be unfair as not many have won the Nobel Prize but
: what about other fields ? Sikhs are supposed to be martial and one can
: excuse them not getting to the top in the Navy -there is no water
: around Punjab , but has a Sikh ever risen to the top in the army ? air
: force ?
I don't have enough knowledge and stats on milatary positions
attained by Sikhs in India but the following I know for fact.
My father's cousin heads one of India's submarines and that I have
run into a former Brigadier at Surrey Gurdwara in B.C.
I think there are only four Brigadiers at one time in the Indian
Armed forces.
From what I have heard from Indian veterans is that
usually a Sikh will not get past the Brigadier position due to
politics. To become a general, in India as in pretty much any
country in the world, is a highly political thing.
My mother has a 'Fufar' who has two sons in the armed
forces. One of them is an Air force captain I believe and the
other a captain in the Army. I am pretty sure I am correct about
these postition but will double-check them and post what I find out
for sure.
As for Sikhs in the Armed forces, the Sikh Regiment of
the Indian Army is the most decorated in India and perhaps
one of the, if not the, most decorated in the entire world.
Says, a lot for a people who make up only about 2% of India's
population.
Perpinder Singh Patrola
P.Siddharth
Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
>
>
> This is what Brahmins keep telling their "inferior"
> dalits (80% of Hindus) when they ask about the Caste
> System - "you just dont understand it" !
>
> It will take another 84,000 janams really
> understand it - right!
Sardarji Bara baj gaye. The Mazhabis discrimination is the only
discrimination that is justifiable because jat sikhs are superior. The
highest caste are the khalistanis who have the courage to kill women and
children, bus passengers, bomb planes etc. The greatest human being that
ever lived was Jarnail Singh Bhidranwala. All others like Major singh,
kaptan singh, leftan singh, subedar singh anf armed kaur were not really
leaders. Only General or Jarnail was the leader.
History of Indian subcontinent should be the history of Khalistanis, by
Khalistanis. Facts do not matter.
I am sure the above letter will make you happy as I am the first person
who has posted clearly espousing your views. All you seem to get is
condemnation for your support of arsonists and bomb throwers.Also as per
view there is no such thing as a good brahmin or bania and there is no
such thing as a bad khalistani. However my only personal criticism if
you do not mind Sir is that it will not be a bad idea if Khalistanis
took a shower once in a while and used a shampoo for all that hair, so
that bird nests will not grow thjere. I reserve my comments for
khalistanis and not the non khalistani sikh population who are a credit
to India and have in the past from Guru Govind Singh, Guru Tegh Bahadur
and Govind Singhs sons to the present day have sacrificed their life for
India.
>
Gurupdesh Singh
P.Siddharth wrote:
>
> Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is what Brahmins keep telling their "inferior"
> > dalits (80% of Hindus) when they ask about the Caste
> > System - "you just dont understand it" !
> >
> > It will take another 84,000 janams really
> > understand it - right!
>
> Sardarji Bara baj gaye. The Mazhabis discrimination is the only
Its: Barah Vaj-gaye in "Khalistani" Bhiyaji.
> discrimination that is justifiable because jat sikhs are superior. The
> highest caste are the khalistanis who have the courage to kill women and
> children, bus passengers, bomb planes etc. The greatest human being that
> ever lived was Jarnail Singh Bhidranwala. All others like Major singh,
> kaptan singh, leftan singh, subedar singh anf armed kaur were not really
> leaders. Only General or Jarnail was the leader.
> History of Indian subcontinent should be the history of Khalistanis, by
> Khalistanis. Facts do not matter.
>
> I am sure the above letter will make you happy as I am the first person
> who has posted clearly espousing your views. All you seem to get is
> condemnation for your support of arsonists and bomb throwers.Also as per
> view there is no such thing as a good brahmin or bania and there is no
> such thing as a bad khalistani. However my only personal criticism if
> you do not mind Sir is that it will not be a bad idea if Khalistanis
> took a shower once in a while and used a shampoo for all that hair, so
> that bird nests will not grow thjere. I reserve my comments for
Kirar humor !
Gurupdesh Singh
michelle wrote:
>
> On 6 Mar 1998 01:03:36 GMT, spat...@unixg.ubc.ca (Perpindervir Singh)
> General Arora ,who was instrumental in liberating Bangladesh
> was a gursikh.
> General Bikram Singh was a gursikh.He was killed in a
> helicopter crash .He was a candidate for chief of army staff under
> Nehru.
> General Surrinder Rana is a sikh.
> What is this nonsense being posted against Sikhs?
> M Singh
Michelle-ji, ah-gal-hi shado . . . 5 of the 9 TOP-ranking
Generals in the Indian (50% Sikhs) army post 1947 were
Sikhs. In total over 50% of the officer core and troops
were Sikhs. After the communal and supremacist
Brahmanists got a firm grasp on the country and beaurocracy,
they began thinning out Sikhs and made it impossible for most
to rise above middle-rank.
If it wasnt for the Sikhs, the Pakistanis and Chinese would
have occupied most of north India and eastern India.
General Niazi (Commander of Pakistan army who surrendenered
to a Sikh General in Bangladesh, 1972) writes in his
book that he told him in jest (both were graduates from the
Lahore Military Academy):
"If it wasnt for you Sikhras, we would have taken Delhi 10
times over".
In Hindi war films with Pakistan, they will put some "Sharma"
or "Verma" as the main Officers and heros. One or 2 Sikhs
will be thrown in the background polishing Kirar boots.
Brahmanist Motto: "If you cant make history, re-write it".
Now just watch some Bania/Bahman jump all over me calling
me a "racist" for simply stating some facts that dont suit
their lunatic fantasy world-view:
that 7%OCs are at the real and greatest "Kshatriya" of their
10 thousand year old "Hindusthan" and are at center of the solar
system!
Jadoh jarurat paye tah khun-eh-jigar assah ditah,
Jadoh bahar ayi teh kandeh naih, keh gulistan hamarah-heh!
Regards,
Gurupdesh
P.Siddharth
o
>
> > >
> > >
> > > From what I have heard from Indian veterans is that
> > >usually a Sikh will not get past the Brigadier position due to
> > >politics. To become a general, in India as in pretty much any
> > >country in the world, is a highly political thing.
> >
For 04 and above (ranks above a Colonel) there is a tough examination as
Generals have to learn a lot about strategy. There is where the problems
lies. All Sikhs do not have the brains of a Manmohan singh or Kushwant
singh. There a lot of Gurupdesh singhs and Kunal singhs. Do we want
these guys to lead the army. They will be good taxidrivers but not
Generals. I am glad thet they have tough examinations for promotions to
a field rank.
Amitabh Hajela
Gurupdesh Singh wrote:
> After the communal and supremacist
> Brahmanists got a firm grasp on the country and beaurocracy,
> they began thinning out Sikhs and made it impossible for most
> to rise above middle-rank.
Don't agree with much that you say, Gurupdesh, but I have to agree with the
above.
>
>
> If it wasnt for the Sikhs, the Pakistanis and Chinese would
> have occupied most of north India and eastern India.
Very likely true also.
>
>
> In Hindi war films with Pakistan, they will put some "Sharma"
> or "Verma" as the main Officers and heros. One or 2 Sikhs
> will be thrown in the background polishing Kirar boots.
>
Well, you're right to an extent; certainly the humongous role played by Sikhs
is underplayed. BUT, the propoganda of those films would certainly not please
most hard core Hindus either, for they go out of their way to paint Muslims in
the best light possible, and downplay whatever role Islam played in riling up
Pakistan, or causing the conflicts, or very simply in motivating the average
Pakistani soldier. The ambivalence felt by most Indian Muslims about fighting
Pakistan is also ignored; instead, they're depicted as very pro-India die-hard
Indians. So I would not say these films accurately deal with Muslim/Pakistani
aggression and motives either.
You like to say that Brahmins re-write history. Would you agree that part of
that includes deliberately ignoring or downplaying the atrocities committed in
the name of Islam for well over a thousand years against ALL the native peoples
of India? Certainly I know the true picture is NOT presented in any government
text book!
Brijnandan Singh Dehiya
Oh, shut up. Taking exams and facing real threats are two different things.
Let a Sikh devise the tests, and see how people fare.
Brij
----
kee Haal Nee
P.Siddharth wrote:
> For 04 and above (ranks above a Colonel) there is a tough examination as
> Generals have to learn a lot about strategy. There is where the problems
> lies. All Sikhs do not have the brains of a Manmohan singh or Kushwant
But all bengaliiis doo.
Machee khaa
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <3500BF...@mail.idt.net>, ps...@mail.idt.net wrote:
>o
>>
>> > >
>
>> > >
>> > > From what I have heard from Indian veterans is that
>> > >usually a Sikh will not get past the Brigadier position due to
>> > >politics. To become a general, in India as in pretty much any
>> > >country in the world, is a highly political thing.
>> >
>Generals have to learn a lot about strategy. There is where the problems
>lies. All Sikhs do not have the brains of a Manmohan singh or Kushwant
>these guys to lead the army. They will be good taxidrivers but not
>Generals. I am glad thet they have tough examinations for promotions to
>a field rank.
Their forefathers, along with those of Jats/Gujars/Rajputs/etc., had enough
brains to rule Banias/Bahmans for the past 2500 years in the northwest. Where
the real social order was the Scythian Social Order and the dominant religion
was Buddhism. By the way, when was a Bania ever known for brains, their
traditional claim to fame was "chalaki"!
Chh...@nospam-2077.mailexcite.com
and have no brains like their forefathers? Say that in Rajasthan
or Western UP and your so called Scythian brother will roast you
alive! But I think most of them are smart and know that their
interests lie in India. The 0.07% neo-nazi, hate mongering
Khalistani propaganda notwithstanding..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted using Reference.COM http://WWW.Reference.COM
FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gurupdesh Singh
Why dont your go to Rajasthan/UP and tell Rajputs/Jats there
that they are "stupid and have no brains like their forefathers"?
Did the Scythic Rajputs traditionally inter-marry with Banias and
Brahmins?
You fellows are only "Kshatriyas" on ngs and in Hindi movie
movies (financed by Gujarati Banias) where history can be
invented on the fly to suit revisionist, hegemonic and
supremacist Brahmanist fancies.
Again, please give the name, date, and place of ONE Bahman/Bania
Raj-dhani/administration/army/etc. in the northwest, during
the regions 3500 years of known history prior to annexation
in 1847. Also, give a date and place where the "Bania-Kshatriya"
fought their last battle and the Raj-dhani involved.
Kunal Singh
In article <6drepk$v...@news.acns.nwu.edu> b...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Brijnandan Singh Dehiya) writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
>For 04 and above (ranks above a Colonel) there is a tough examination as
>Generals have to learn a lot about strategy. There is where the problems
>lies. All Sikhs do not have the brains of a Manmohan singh or Kushwant
>singh. There a lot of Gurupdesh singhs and Kunal singhs. Do we want
>these guys to lead the army. They will be good taxidrivers but not
>Generals. I am glad thet they have tough examinations for promotions to
>a field rank.
Oh, shut up. Taking exams and facing real threats are two different things.
Let a Sikh devise the tests, and see how people fare.
Hee, hee, hee! Interestingly I've been declared a Sikh along with
Gurupdesh Singh. But this Hindu taxi driver agrees with Brij that no
geeks should be allowed to lead the military! There should be no
silly exams for a higher post such as that of a General, only proven
capability demonstrated in service and a large sign on the wall that
says "NO GEEKS ALLOWED IN THE ARMY! ALL GEEKS TAKE YOUR SHARPENED
PENCILS AND STICK THEM IN YOUR EAR! THAT'S AN ORDER!"
Kunal Singh
In article <6drepk$v...@news.acns.nwu.edu> b...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Brijnandan Singh Dehiya) writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
In article <3500BF...@mail.idt.net>, P.Siddharth <ps...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>o
>>
>> > >
>
>> > >
>> > > From what I have heard from Indian veterans is that
>> > >usually a Sikh will not get past the Brigadier position due to
>> > >politics. To become a general, in India as in pretty much any
>> > >country in the world, is a highly political thing.
>> >
>For 04 and above (ranks above a Colonel) there is a tough examination as
>Generals have to learn a lot about strategy. There is where the problems
>lies. All Sikhs do not have the brains of a Manmohan singh or Kushwant
>singh. There a lot of Gurupdesh singhs and Kunal singhs. Do we want
>these guys to lead the army. They will be good taxidrivers but not
>Generals. I am glad thet they have tough examinations for promotions to
>a field rank.
Oh, shut up. Taking exams and facing real threats are two different things.
Let a Sikh devise the tests, and see how people fare.
Brij
----
You've got to understand, Brij, P. Siddharth is not only a Brahmin,
but has a Brahminical attitude towards everything including the army.
If he isn't posting articles declaring why every other caste would get
decimated in exams if Brahmins were given even a semblance of a fair
chance, he is attempting to justify why Brahmins should fill the
higher army posts as well.
Alright, how many people here would like Manmohan Singh or Kushwant
Singh to take charge of the Indian army ? All geek supporters please
raise your hands! Personally, I wouldn't want either geek to be given
charge of anything but a seminar or two where they could do the least
damage!
I can see Manmohan Singh addressing an emergency war meeting now:
Is our casualty rate 7% or 8% ? Can we raise the enemy's casualty
rate somehow to double digits ? How can we accomplish this growth and
will we able to sustain it ? That is the question that I would like
all of you to focus on. I believe we can win this war only if we
raise the casualty rate to an order of magnitude higher than it
currently is. Do we have the latest figures from the front, so that I
can plug it into my laptop war simulation ? We must wait for the data
before we plan any further strategy. What does the Pakistani general
mean, he will kick my ass along with my laptop's ? That
ignorant barbarian, probably doesn't even know how to use a
computer! Now if our bombing's effectiveness for selected
targets could be raised to 80%, given that we have so many
bombs, I would say we could decimate the entire country of Pakistan in
two days!
Perpindervir Singh
Kunal Singh (nny...@ny.ubs.com) wrote:
: You've got to understand, Brij, P. Siddharth is not only a Brahmin,
Hahahaahahah!! I really enjoyed the above. Although I
have a great deal of respect for scholars like Khushwant Singh
and his like, they are better suited for the academics and
not the army.
Perpinder Singh Patrola